Date: Thu, 26 Aug 99 03:50 EDT From: Dave Evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-Id: <aabcdefg3045$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: unidentified Nepenthes
> Steve, you may very well be correct. I've looked at pictures of both and
> I've seen samples of both species that look like mine. When I compare
> features I see that both are lacking the "wings" and the rim of the
> pitcher is "ruffled." I'm sure these are not the correct terms.
I'm not sure of a 'glossary' of Nepenthes terms, but in most
cases, normal botanical terms can be used. Those are called
wings and the rim of the pitcher is a peristome. That dangly
thing between the end of the leaf and the pitcher is a tendril,
the very top of the pitcher is a lid... If there is "stalk"
between the liana (which is a vine that lasts for more than
year) and the beginning of the leaf, that's a petiole.
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Steve Hinkson wrote:
> > In my opinion, you have N. burkei. As to whether that's a species, or
> > a geographically segregated variety of N. ventricosa isn't a
> > discussion for this forum, I'd guess.
Well, sure it is. The problem here though, is that nobody
has been able to find N. burkei since it was first collected.
So perhaps it's not even from where it is supposedly from.
Perhaps the type is a hybrid. Perhaps it was just a freak and
not even a good example of it's own population... Someone
once told that there is now a resort at the type location so
there isn't much hope of figuring it out for sure.
> > I personally believe many cp "species" are color and / or
> > shape variations and not genetically different enough to be
> > separated taxonomically.
I'm not sure I understand this part. Are you saying you
don't like the definition of species? Are you sure you meant
"genetically" and not "morphologically". Otherwise you seem
to contradict yourself. After all you get different colors as
each plant (or clone) within a species has different genetics.
Really, you feel 'subspecies' and 'variations' and 'forms'
aren't accurate enough to use? I mean you even used the word
variations. If shoe fits...
> > But then, using botanical taxonomy criteria, I'd split to 4 genera,
> > and dozens of species of the genus Homo.
Well, there are a fair amount of species in the genus Homo,
it's just that for but one, all the rest have gone extinct. :)
I'm really curious now, though. How would you split up Homo?
I would have three main groups: Asiatic and Native American,
Caucasoid, Negroid. I think if you want to divide further, it's
a waste, 'cause just about everyone else is a mix of these
three with a little regional flavoring thrown in. In a several
hundred years (or thousands), what started out an obviously
mixed people will become a lot more homogenenous, they (and
other's too) might even believe they're a seperate 'race'.
To any anthropologists on the list: Sorry for the over-
Getting Back to plants,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:03 PST