Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:19:41 -0800 From: "PHILL MANN" <philmann@altu.net.au> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg917$foo@default> Subject: Which Nepenthes?
To all
After being in the Philippines last October and getting to see the diverse
collection of plants from there I couldn't help but to add my two cents
worth to the debate. No I am not going to add anything to the N. ventricosa
vs burkei as I will leave that to the more qualified. (Hello Jan).
I know Jan will bag me for I am one who is using the old name of N.
philippinensis but I have seen some of the plants that are far too
different to be "lumped" into N. alata. I am aware that the type material
was lost from the Manila herbarium during the war but until someone sits
down with this mess called N. alata who's to say these plants are not.
The N. petiolata currently grown in cultivation is the plant described by
Kurata and comes from the Mt Legaspi area of North east Mindanao. It is
obviously one of those plants that will have to be sorted with the N. alata
group and is always destinguished by the concave dimple at the back of the
pitcher just below the lid. A good photo of this plant is in Kondo & Kondo
's book page 115.
The true N. petiolata as per the description and drawing by Danser is the
bottom photo on my home page no 21. this plant was the only one we located
at the type location.
To see a couple of the variations of N alata check my photos on Page 8. N.
truncata page 12 and what i have been calling N. philippinensis (sorry Jan,
again) check the photos on pages 14 & 19.
Regards to all
Phill Mann
P.O. Box 193
Harvey 6220
Western Australia
philmann@altu.net.au
http://webnews.altu.net.au/~philmann
SPECIALISING IN NEPENTHES
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:30 PST