|
Post by sunbelle on Mar 20, 2007 21:37:18 GMT
The 'maxima' complex is what Danser called the Regia section of Nepenthes. He did not place alata in this group, but placed it in the Vulgata section, along with reinwardtiana, mirabilis, gracilis, tobaica, etc. Has recent genetic evidence shown otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 21, 2007 0:37:33 GMT
Dear Trent, Not that I'm aware of, but I thought most people consider the grouping "Insignis" the only one which is true to life, meaning all the plants in that group are actually directly related to each other. Instead of the other Nepenthes groupings which are considered artifacial... And are clearly in need of being updated. For example we now have a whole new group of species which seems closer to the "Insignis" group. Into this unnamed group would go: N. dubia, N. inermis, N. jacquelineae, N. pyriformis, N. tenuis, and N. sp. nova Sumatra. Maybe: N. ovata.Could also be in the group, but these species seem a bit more divergent: N. glabrata, N. macfarlanei, N. talangensis, N. platychila. I think one problem with understanding some of the evolution of Nepenthes, is due to hybridizing and then further evolution of the hybrid population. Some of the species we are looking at now, could be the result of hybrids between ancient branches within the Nepenthes family tree and so they do not and will not fit neatly into a particular group of obviously related species. I'm specifically thinking of Nepenthes alata and N. lowii, N. ephippiata. Good Growing, Dave Evans The 'maxima' complex is what Danser called the Regia section of Nepenthes. He did not place alata in this group, but placed it in the Vulgata section, along with reinwardtiana, mirabilis, gracilis, tobaica, etc. Has recent genetic evidence shown otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 21, 2007 0:48:57 GMT
Dear Trent, One reason Danser would have placed this species into that group (Vulgata section) is he was looking at specimens of Nepenthes eustachya, but was thinking it was N. alata. Clearly, these are different species, not even directly related. So when Danser talks about N. alata being close to N. reinwardtiana and N. tobaica, he actually is refering to N. eustachya. Also, I have to disagree with Danser, as N. mirabilis doesn't belong in this group (Vulgata section) either. The 'maxima' complex is what Danser called the Regia section of Nepenthes. He did not place alata in this group, but placed it in the Vulgata section, along with reinwardtiana, mirabilis, gracilis, tobaica, etc. Has recent genetic evidence shown otherwise?
|
|