Re: N. maxima, fusca, et. al.

Date: Thu Aug 26 1999 - 20:02:50 PDT

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:02:50 EDT
Message-Id: <aabcdefg3057$foo@default>
Subject: Re: N. maxima, fusca, et. al.

Dear Jan,

You had attributed the aforementioned plants of "N. maxima" to forms of N.
veitchii. I do not believe this to be the case due to the the morphological
differences of the two. All plants of N. veitchii that I have grown, or seen
photos of, tend (in the adult plants) to have a growth habit in which the
leaves become opposite one another at 180 degrees. This is not the case in
with the "maxima" in question which produced the leaves in an ascending
spiral. Also I have never known N. veitchii to produce true upper pitchers,
in the form of these plants, that is, smaller, more infundibuliform, nearly
colorless traps. N. veitchii seems to keep the mature pitchers irregardless
of the length of the vines, both before and after blooming. Also the pitcher
fluid of veitchii is watery, that of the 'maxima', viscous.

Again, let me stress that it was not know for sure that these plants came
from Sarawak, so without a point of origin, coupled with recent taxonomic
changes in the genus, i.d. is difficult at best.

As to why the supposed N. northiana from Munich could not have been an
artifical hybrid rather than a natural one, it certainly could. I was only
going by what I was told, that it was originally a collected specimen. Why
could it have not been mislabeled by Munich? I am afraid you have me on that
one. One always hopes that Botanic Gardens always do everything right and
never make mistakes, but that certainly flys in the face of all that is known
about humanity in general! I remember the accident that happened with the N.
clipeata seed labeling, so you have an excellent point.

Finally as to recent taxonomy (here I go re-labeling my plants again), am I
to understand the following?: (1) Plants commonly referred to and grown as N.
fusca were actually originally described as N. stenophylla? (2) Plants
commonly referred to as N. stenophylla were originally described as N.
fallax. (3) Both of these plants are restricted to the Kinabalu - Crocker
range running from N.E. Sabah down through N. Central Sarawak? (4) Both
descriptions of the true N. fusca and stenophylla refer to plants, probably
not in cultivation (at least in the U.S.) which come from Kalimantan? (5) In
Jebb and Cheek N. faizaliana was synonomized with N. 'stenophylla' which
should actually be N. fallax? (This I disagree with, having living specimens
of both plants and noting differences in morphology, growth, temperature
requirements, and coloration.

In any case, this is certainly interesting if slightly confusing!

Thank's for the updates.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:03 PST