|
Post by marcel on Nov 26, 2014 16:05:13 GMT
Another "new"species has been named, Nepenthes zygon. Personally I regret to observe that more and more species are described by what as far as my information goes is a 17th century approach to science. That is to say a species gets named based on collected material that is shipped halfway across the world and is studied as either a herbarium specimen or a plant living in a botanical garden. As far as I can tell no check has been done to see if the plant actually represents a viable wild population or just a fluke of nature that caught the eye of a planthunter for just that reason...being an anomaly in the greater population. www.independent.co.uk/environment/nepenthes-zygon-new-exotic-carnivorous-plant-discovered-at-kew-gardens-9883059.htmlWhat do you think? Should only species of living plants be accepted if they actually represent a living wild population? Join the discussion on this on our Facebook forum page: www.facebook.com/groups/1454798608087049/
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by leeb on Nov 27, 2014 0:40:56 GMT
Actually they named three new species; N. armin, N. tboli and N. zygon.
LeeB.
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Nov 27, 2014 11:30:00 GMT
Yes, but I don't have the actual publication (yet) so I thought I'd just share this as a starter.
|
|
coline
Full Member
Life's essence: patience
Posts: 484
|
Post by coline on Nov 28, 2014 14:35:57 GMT
Leeb do you have the publication to share?
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by leeb on Nov 28, 2014 21:44:31 GMT
Not yet unfortunately but I will keep looking at the Blumea journal site.
LeeB.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 30, 2014 4:04:39 GMT
Another "new"species has been named, Nepenthes zygon. Personally I regret to observe that more and more species are described by what as far as my information goes is a 17th century approach to science. That is to say a species gets named based on collected material that is shipped halfway across the world and is studied as either a herbarium specimen or a plant living in a botanical garden. As far as I can tell no check has been done to see if the plant actually represents a viable wild population or just a fluke of nature that caught the eye of a planthunter for just that reason...being an anomaly in the greater population. www.independent.co.uk/environment/nepenthes-zygon-new-exotic-carnivorous-plant-discovered-at-kew-gardens-9883059.htmlWhat do you think? Should only species of living plants be accepted if they actually represent a living wild population? Join the discussion on this on our Facebook forum page: www.facebook.com/groups/1454798608087049/That plant has been "lumped" as N. copelandii. Not sure what makes it a "fluke" though...?? And as I've been saying for several years, it is, well was, un-named. I'm so glad Dr. Cheek is taking care of all the random Nepenthes species that have been just "hanging around" without names, or silly names like N. alata.
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Nov 30, 2014 11:53:09 GMT
In that we disagree I'm affraid. I think naming something without doing a good check on what it represents or not is worse than leaving it in a bigger group.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 2, 2014 18:10:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Dec 2, 2014 19:39:16 GMT
My "issue" is clearly stated in the first post of this topic
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 2, 2014 20:00:54 GMT
Ok, why do you suppose this plant is not representative? You must have some reason. Or you can literally just say the same thing about any sample. Which is entirely possible. I'm still not getting your point here... Why is this specimen suspect in your opinion? Because it was grown from seed, like any plant?
Especially when there isn't one, but dozens being grown by many people...?
If you are comparing this to what happened with N. robcantleyi, don't. There was only ever one plant of that kind from which the original seed was collected. The site is known to have been extensively logged which creates Nepenthes hybrids.
The situation with N. zygon is different, it was a "normal" Nepenthes population from which seed was collected. It is not very related to N. copelandii. It is more similar N. mindanaoensis but is less hairy.
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Dec 3, 2014 16:16:53 GMT
You still don't get it..... My issue is not whether or not the plant is representative or even if it is unique enough to be a species..my issue is that they didn't do a proper check while they could have.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 4, 2014 0:49:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Dec 4, 2014 9:54:10 GMT
Dave, I have tried. I also looked up your post history and seen more people trying to get their point accross to you and failing. I have neither time nor energy for endless attempts so I'm sorry to say I'll have to stop trying. Perhaps some else can make you see the point.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 4, 2014 18:20:49 GMT
Marcel, what makes you think what you're saying is even the case? All the people involved with N. robcantleyi and N. zygon, have been very forth coming with information about the locations and what other species where or were not found. You have the informations you say are missing. What is your point here?
Personally, I'd like to know why herbariums and new species have been getting ignored for decades!!! I love the fact Dr Cheek is going through Kew's Herbarium and gardens. I hope he inspires more people.
And natural hybrids do need names. If it takes people thinking they are species for them to get names, so what? The work is finally getting done... However, this doesn't indicate I believe this plant is a hybrid, just that the exact nature of a particular species is separate from it being named. We know it exists naturally at at least one location and it also needs a name so further information about it can be filed/referenced under that name.
|
|
|
Post by RL7836 on Dec 11, 2014 18:42:23 GMT
As far as I can tell no check has been done to see if the plant actually represents a viable wild population or just a fluke of nature that caught the eye of a planthunter for just that reason...being an anomaly in the greater population. You still don't get it..... My issue is not whether or not the plant is representative or even if it is unique enough to be a species..my issue is that they didn't do a proper check while they could have. Marcel, In looking through this thread, I admit I join Dave in being confused. In your opening statement, your concern is whether " the plant actually represents a viable wild population" but in a later post you state " My issue is not whether or not the plant is representative". Dave appears to have addressed your concerns but you still insist that he has not. What are your other concerns?
|
|