|
|
Post by SundeWCitY on Jul 20, 2007 6:54:10 GMT
hello, I have a nepenthes tentaculata and I was wondering if anyone else has one that is a different variety if you could post a picture so i could see some of the other forms it would be great thanks  ...PS i guess its the closest im gonna get to a hamata! no one has them here...  heres a picture of mine:  |
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jul 20, 2007 9:22:58 GMT
Some, including myself, would say that hamata is a "variety" of tentaculata. Well actually a geotype, but you get the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Jul 20, 2007 23:05:14 GMT
The species N. tentaculata is very wide spread and variable. However, I am starting to suspect that the large amount of variation we see in some wide spread species, is less a factor of the original population spreading and adapting on their own, but from those populations "borrowing" alleles from other species through hybridization. For example: N. tentaculata from Mount Kinabalu can be rather robust and also display eye spots on the backs of the pitchers, just like N. reinwardtiana. I think it got that way by borrowing some of the DNA from N. r. I don't feel this means the plants are hybrids though, just that in Nepenthes (and also in Sarracenia) the evolution is a bit more circular than them simply forming endlessly dividing branches on their family tree(s)--which is the text book version of evolution.
The plants you find at just about every location you find for a particular species will show some differences from the plants at the next location, but what they have in common usually far out weights the differences.
When I look at the situation of N. hamata vs. N. tentaculata, I find it rather amusing people feel they should be considered the same species. Take this fanciful scenario: You are walking through a forest, you find three types of Nepenthes, each growing in a different part of the forest on different soils and at different altitudes. You know Nepenthes pretty well, so would you ever say that you found N. hamata while you are looking at N. muluensis or N. tentaculata? Or, would you say, "Wow, that's a really nice N. muluensis!" while photographing a N. hamata? Or, "I really like that white topped N. tentaculata"? I think not...
Doesn't species mean special? If you can ID the plant immediately from several feet away, why would you even want to combine them into the same species name? Both N. muluensis and N. hamata have evolved beyond the large range of diversity shown by N. tentaculata. While I certainly would be happy to combine them all into one species based on evidence which shows they are all part of one continuous species with many forms, I suspect we passed that time frame by at least several tens of thousand of years, and now they are simply each other's closest relatives...
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jul 21, 2007 4:08:58 GMT
This is a faulty assumption. Reinwardtiana does NOT pass eyespots on to even primary hybrids. Assuming that it would be present after a single reinwardtiana has hybridized with a tentaculata, then the genes being washed out by subsequent generations of breeding with tentaculata is ridiculous. Also, many species and many hybrids display eyespots, so allying eyespots solely with reinwardtiana should not be done.
In the case of hamata, I don't see how you find it "amusing" that people think it should be put into the same species as tentaculata, but just given a varietal name. Why on earth would you split that, but keep all the forms of alata as one species, or all the forms of maxima as one, etc. Besides the peristome and lid hairs, there is practially NO difference between tentaculata and hamata whatsoever. Being able to tell what something is "from several feet away" is an awful test of if something should be its own species or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 21, 2007 9:36:21 GMT
Hi cdncnp: You have a beautiful and healthy plant, congratulations. My only comment on your idea of having a hamata like plant is that it looks like you got the gunung murud form of tentaculata (resembling more like N. murudensis). if you want a plant that looks more like hamata would be to get a N. tentaculata from sulawesi where N. hamata is also found.
Regarding looks as way to lump species into a couple master species, well, how we lump aristolochioides and klosii (1 is in sumatera and the other in New guineae)?
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by SundeWCitY on Jul 22, 2007 8:29:04 GMT
i thought it did look somewhat close to murudensis! so it is the gunung murud form? so many localities lol, it would be nice to get a klossi, or aristolochioides regardles of what species it is! they look so alien! but thankyou i will try and hunt down a sulawesi form!
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jul 22, 2007 12:02:49 GMT
good luck...
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Jul 22, 2007 14:41:32 GMT
If a form of N. maxima or N. alata had the peristome of N. hamata, you bet I'd say it should be considered a separate species and not just another form of N. maxima or N. alata.
I agree that besides the peristome and lid hairs, there's no real difference. Don't you think those two attributes are pretty big differences though?
|
|
|
|
Post by SundeWCitY on Jul 22, 2007 17:32:35 GMT
yeah i dont think i will have any luck with the klossi, i dont think anyone has them! they are probably as rare as getting struck by lightning! they are neat looking tho
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Jul 22, 2007 18:23:42 GMT
If a form of N. maxima or N. alata had the peristome of N. hamata, you bet I'd say it should be considered a separate species and not just another form of N. maxima or N. alata. I agree that besides the peristome and lid hairs, there's no real difference. Don't you think those two attributes are pretty big differences though? Speaking of peristomes, I had always found it interesting that N. mirabilis echinostoma was never elevated to species status. I'm not saying it should, just that for a genus that has so many similar species, I'm just suprised that a bigger push to elevate it hasnt been made. Or maybe it has and I've just been out of the loop. It does give a little credit to those who believe that N. hamata should be considered a form of N. tentaculata. |
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Jul 22, 2007 18:40:12 GMT
yeah i dont think i will have any luck with the klossi, i dont think anyone has them! they are probably as rare as getting struck by lightning! they are neat looking tho I think you have a better chance of getting struck by lighting than obtaining one of those at this time  Very good point Michael! |
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jul 22, 2007 20:54:48 GMT
After looking at the maximas of Wamena, I feel bad grouping all of those diverse forms into one species, especially without even giving them varietal status. Besides the peristome and lid hair, hamata and tentaculata are the same exact thing, inhabiting the same range (some even place tentaculata above hamata). So a good amount of people want hamata separate because of nothing but a peristome, but lots of people don't want xipioides separate? Doesn't make sense. Don't you think all the forms of alata have different peristomes too? I can think of 5 different forms off the top of my head at least, that vary much more considerably than in just one difference
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Jul 22, 2007 23:17:49 GMT
This is why we need to use subspecies status more often. It's used extensively in other genera, so why not Nepenthes? There's no point in this "all or nothing" attitude where a plant is either a new species or is lumped into an old one (N. fusca 'Sarawak', anyone?)
Taxonomy in Nepenthes is a sad day when anyone can name a dull as dishwater plant after their boss and call it a new species, yet the really unique forms are lumped into pre-existing species with a location area after their name. I really do believe we should start using sub-species status.
Now which is the REAL N. tentaculata and which would be a subspecies? DAMN!
|
|
|
|
Post by SundeWCitY on Jul 23, 2007 5:36:01 GMT
wow its geeting to be an extremely deep convorsation! or what about N. ventricosa and its types! lots a confusion mong nepenthes! but in a way its good, keeps things interesting!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Jul 23, 2007 21:28:59 GMT
I grow several of these and have for a number of years. I don't believe for one minute all the plants labeled as N. alata are the same species. Also, now that my N. xiphioides has started growing a basal rosette, I am less inclined to include it into N. gymnamphora. There is a long history of people putting various species into N. alata, the name itself is becoming watered down. At least with N. tentaculata and N. hamata we know they are closely related. This cannot be said of some of the plants that have gotten named as N. alata, some still are labeled such without any idea of why... Next thing you know N. gracilis * N. tobaica will show on the market under the N. alata. After looking at the maximas of Wamena, I feel bad grouping all of those diverse forms into one species, especially without even giving them varietal status. Besides the peristome and lid hair, hamata and tentaculata are the same exact thing, inhabiting the same range (some even place tentaculata above hamata). So a good amount of people want hamata separate because of nothing but a peristome, but lots of people don't want xiphioides separate? Doesn't make sense. Don't you think all the forms of alata have different peristomes too? I can think of 5 different forms off the top of my head at least, that vary much more considerably than in just one difference |
|
...PS i guess its the closest im gonna get to a hamata! no one has them here... 
