|
Post by BarryRice on Mar 13, 2007 0:25:21 GMT
Hey Folks,
Last time I reviewed my canonical species lists, I verified that Jan Schlauer continues to keep N. copelandii a synonym of N. alata. However, I've been seeing folks using the name N. copelandii, and I think that it was on the Borneo Exotics web site that I saw it listed recently.
What's the thought from The Great Minds? Nepenthes alata certainly is polymorphic---is there really reason to believe that N. copelandii is a good species name?
B
|
|
zero
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by zero on Mar 13, 2007 0:46:56 GMT
N copelandii isn't a species name? Is my N. copelandii a N alata? peace, zero
|
|
|
Post by witzelsucht on Mar 13, 2007 4:29:06 GMT
Barry,
I've wondered the same thing and don't have any good answers to your question. In my mind, it is a similar debate to the maxima eymae split. Lower pitchers look pretty similar, upper pitchers are visibly different. Personally I don't have enough of a handle on the "distinguishing characteristics" of N. alata or any real grasp of what the wild populations look like. The gambler in me thinks that it will lumped with alata eventually but I'll leave that decision to others.
|
|
|
Post by borneo on Mar 13, 2007 9:19:07 GMT
Hi, good to have this new forum The "N. copelandii" in cultivation today was introduced by me in the late 1990's. I discovered a plant in Mindanao that appeared very significantly different from N. alata, even allowing for the considerable infraspecific variation within what could probably be described as the N. alata complex. The pipe shaped upper pitchers and other features were very different from the many various forms of N. alata I had seen elsewhere in the Philippines. I then searched the herbarium at Manila Museum and turned up a specimen (isotype or holotype I can't recall) which appeared nearly identical in apprarance and locality to herbarium material I had collected, especially in the upper pitchers. It was entitled as "Nepenthes copelandii". I am not a trained botanist, so from the horticultural standpoint, this seemed sufficient to describe the plant, with the usual lax responsibility we horticulturists ascribe to such matters I am happy to be proved wrong but is there any hard evidence that N. copelandii is not a valid name I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Mar 13, 2007 15:41:57 GMT
Barry, Rob, Rich, Zero, and everyone interested,
It was recently pointed out to me that the description of alata in Danser is an extraction from Blanco., and that it is not a description based on herbarium material. Perhaps someone could find Blanco's original description and see if copelandii would fall within. Wish I had access to these sources, but this is how it was related to me by an old timer. Has anyone done any further exploring or investigating into those different alata-like forms found on Palawan? Trent
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Mar 13, 2007 16:00:01 GMT
Hey Folks, I suppose this is also a two-pronged question, that we should make sure we have correctly stated before Jan Schlauer points out our errors. The first is whether the name " N. copelandii" is valid, i.e. described, published, with a type specimen or suitable substitute. I think that the name is valid, since Jan cites it in his list as having authorship and year publication, so it is not a nomen nudem. Specifically, he has it N. copelandii Merr. ex Macf., from Pflanzenr. 36:51 (1908). The second question, which I think is the one that we're really discussing, is whether the name describes something we accept as a good species. Are we in agreement on this? (Uh oh, I sense a discussion of species concepts in the wings....maybe we can avoid that.)
|
|
|
Post by borneo on Mar 14, 2007 2:21:37 GMT
I photographed the herbarium sheets at Manila and have slides somewhere. I was convinced at the time that the material on the sheet I was looking at matched the material I had, pretty well. As I'm always at pains to point out, I'm no taxonomist and am not up to counting glands etc. However, I would say that if the name 'N. copelandii' is valid and the material on that Manilia herbarium sheet represented 'N. copelandii', as it said it did, then if the plant now being circulated in cultivation is not 'N. coplelandii' but 'N. alata', then ergo 'N. copelandii' is synonymous with 'N. alata'. IMO, there are so many differences between all the forms of 'N. alata' I have seen and the plant I have been calling 'N. copelandii' that it should be a distinct species. Incidentally, nearby to where I found my so-called 'N. copelandii' there was another species that looked very much like the Luzon 'N. alata' and nothing like 'N. copelandii'.
Clear as mud?
...but I am no taxonomist, Jan, where are you? Jan.... Jan! Need some help here!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 14, 2007 3:54:00 GMT
Dear Barry,
The plants in cultivation under the name Nepenthes copelandii are not N. alata. They appear related, but then again, N. truncata also appears to be related to them as well. I have been reading, and re-reading Jebb and Cheek's Nepenthes revision and they don't cover N. copelandii, other than to say it looks to be different from N. alata and maybe someone should address the situation.
I saw a large plant of N. copelandii at Atlanta Botanical Gardens. It very distinct from the Nepenthes alata of Luzon and those from Mindanao (which can probably be made into even another species). Specifically, in Nepenthes alata the lower and upper pitchers are never infundibuliform as the lower 1/3 of the pitchers are ventricose, while the top 2/3 of the pitchers are cylindrical or very slightly infundibuliform. N. alata from Luzon: The peristome is flat and oblique (similar to what is seen in N. tentaculata, the lid triangular and has a glandular crest near the base of the lid. The pitchers are covered with a reddish felt-like fuzz. N. alata from Mindanao: Have round peristomes which ride up in the back forming more of a neck, the pitcher base is more ventricose and lids are rounded, without a glandular crest, but there is a thickened mid-rib. The pitchers are completely glabrous.
N. copelandii also from Mindanao. The upper pitchers are alway infundibuliform and are somewhat similar to those of Nepenthes fallax/stenophylla. The "neck" part of the pitcher is much thinner in this species with the peristome almost forming a column below the lid. Lower pitchers do not resemble those of N. alata as they are cylindrical with a slight constriction near the 1/3 point which makes the lower 1/3 appear slightly ventricose, but the whole the pitcher has a narrow profile.
Dave Evans
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Mar 15, 2007 5:32:52 GMT
I grow 17 different N. alata (a couple may be N. saraganiensis but I don't read Japanese and have been unable to find a translation of Dr. Kurata's description) and the plants known as N. copelandii, Mt. Apo and Mt. Pasian, are distinct, in uppers, from all of my N. alata.
If a dramatic difference in upper pitcher morphology is not sufficient to a new description then, I don't know what is. This is for the professional taxonomists to figure out but from the standpoint of the grower these are distinctly different plants.
BTW .... I recently had contact with a university student in the Philippines who was doing his thesis on N. copelandii on Mt. Apo. He found a green variety of N. alata growing sympatrically with a colony of N. copelandii.
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 15, 2007 5:47:54 GMT
Hi all:
I had the pleasure to contact Dr. Jebb about a year ago or so. He was about to publish phylogenetic trees on Nepenthes and it turns out that N. copelandii if more closely related to N. truncata than we originally thought. It's a shame that on the same tree, he failed to put N. alata for comparison purposes though.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by picrophyll on Mar 15, 2007 14:56:34 GMT
Leilani When you mention N. saraganiensis, do you mean N. mindanaoensis as I haven't seen any listings for this species. Perhaps it's a new one, if so can you enlighten me. Cheers Picrophyll
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Mar 15, 2007 19:04:42 GMT
picrophyll .... N. saranganiensis is a Philippine species described by Dr. Kurata in 2003 in the Journal of the Insectivorous Plant Society. It is very much like N. alata and is distinguished primarily by it "extremely decurrent leaf attachment." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepenthes_saranganiensisAs I mentioned above, I have yet to find an English translation of Dr. Kurata's description so this is about all I can tell you.
|
|
|
Post by picrophyll on Mar 17, 2007 4:52:51 GMT
Leilani Thanks for that. I remember this plant from Mindanao province. Cheers Picrophyll
|
|
|
Post by pinglover on Mar 18, 2007 4:16:34 GMT
A small plant sold to me as N. copelandii- Another pitcher on the same plant- Pardon the photography please.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 20, 2007 8:56:29 GMT
Dear Gus, Was there any indication of N. copelandii relation to N. fallax/stenophylla? I thought it is fairly well known that all these species are part of the "maxima" complex... N. alata, copelandii, truncata, maxima, eymae, fusca, rajah, fallax, veitchii, chaniana, pilosa, burbidgeae, ect. The trick, in my mind anyway, is to discern which are more closely related vs. not so closely related. Did Dr. Jebb publish his tree? Thanks, Dave Evans I had the pleasure to contact Dr. Jebb about a year ago or so. He was about to publish phylogenetic trees on Nepenthes and it turns out that N. copelandii if more closely related to N. truncata than we originally thought. It's a shame that on the same tree, he failed to put N. alata for comparison purposes though. Gus
|
|