Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Aug 11, 2007 22:34:12 GMT
This is what I was afraid of. A plant doesn't HAVE to fit into any one group, I think.
If anything, N. veitchii reminds me of a squat N. truncata rather than a maxima-like plant.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Aug 11, 2007 23:13:07 GMT
Sure it does...that's why taxonomy and phylogenetics exist.
|
|
|
Post by stevestewart on Aug 12, 2007 0:16:07 GMT
Just because plants that later proved to be close to N. fusca used to be called by the name N. faizaliana doesn't make the actual species closer, it only means people were confused about the identification. Even setting the two mentioned species in your quote aside, this whole thread seems to indicate that interested people still are confused about the identification of many Nepenthes. I for one feel that anyone who isn't confused by the standing of some of the species in this genus, and on your list, to some degree, simply needs to work with more examples, in culture and in the wild. I notice you have added no possibility of any of the species in your group being hybrids, just question marks and = signs, even though questions of hybrid standing of species is being mentioned. I feel this genus will not be so easily grouped in the long term. (or much too simply grouped for a time) As Clint has mentioned, N. alata is one (the first) species on the list that deserves closer attention. Not to do so makes the whole list less insightful. I don't mean to in any way stop or hinder the process you all have begun, simply to help all concerned look for a possibly larger picture. Take care, Steven Stewart
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Aug 12, 2007 0:32:55 GMT
Sure it does...that's why taxonomy and phylogenetics exist. Let's look at the Drosera genus. You have the binata complex and the petiolaris complex, for example. Everything doesn't HAVE to belong to one of these. I don't think you understood what I said, in that we don't have to force any Nepenthes to fit into a complex if it's made. A species doesn't HAVE to go into an alata or maxima complex if it there's no reason for it to be there, and in a case like N. veitchii, in my personal opinion, it shouldn't be included in a maxima complex if one were made. If it were, wouldn't N. truncata go into an alata complex? That would make sense, I guess. Does this make any sense? I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts for some reason. Taxonomy is a daunting subject in times like this!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Aug 12, 2007 0:47:30 GMT
Sure it does...that's why taxonomy and phylogenetics exist. Let's look at the Drosera genus. You have the binata complex and the petiolaris complex, for example. Everything doesn't HAVE to belong to one of these. I don't think you understood what I said, in that we don't have to force any Nepenthes to fit into a complex if it's made. A species doesn't HAVE to go into an alata or maxima complex if it there's no reason for it to be there, and in a case like N. veitchii, in my personal opinion, it shouldn't be included in a maxima complex if one were made. If it were, wouldn't N. truncata go into an alata complex? That would make sense, I guess. Does this make any sense? I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts for some reason. Taxonomy is a daunting subject in times like this! The beautiful thing about plants (and organisms in general) is that, despite our best efforts in a straight-forward and simplified classification system, there will always be a plant that will make us have to put a square peg into a round hole. Then we have some taxonomists who insist on putting a square peg into a round hole, when a proper square hole is available.
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on Aug 12, 2007 1:33:20 GMT
N. veitchii has both lowland and highland forms, but each of them have a unique leaf rotation, in adult form, of exactly 180 degrees, the ONLY species in the entire genus to display this feature, along with non-prehensile tendrils.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Aug 12, 2007 6:04:09 GMT
Does that hold for both the prostrate and the climbing form?
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on Aug 12, 2007 14:17:09 GMT
Yes it does, phiss, when the plant finally reaches its final stages of maturity, of floweing stature, be it prostrate, or climbing, it will have a 180 degree leaf rotation, while never producing a prehensile tendril.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Aug 13, 2007 3:02:36 GMT
By the way, I thought I would post this here for Dave or anyone else attempting to work these sorts of things out: (perhaps it is already known of though) phylodiversity.net/Chuck Cannon is actually an old professor of mine. I actually got interested in neps by taking his class. He does a lot of work in Malaysia/Indonesia with tropical trees, sometimes in nep habitat. That website has a lot of useful resources on it, but I am stumped as to how to use them.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Aug 13, 2007 23:56:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 14, 2007 3:29:15 GMT
Hello Ron, The identifications at this site are garbage: 132.236.163.181/cgi-bin/dol/dol_terminal.pl?family=NepenthaceaeThere is no N. alata, nor N. ventricosa they are all N. ventrata... Except this one *might* be N. ventricosa, but there is nothing in the photo that would let us know one way or the other: 132.236.163.181/users/mmy8/10_23_06_s/DSCN0674.JPG.1.jpgThe first photo shows N. coccinea and only N. gracilis is on point. Are people supposed be able to use this site to learn something about Nepenthes identification? I'm going to contact the site owner and probably be rebuffed... but I'll try to get them to correct the ID's. But I can't figure out who runs this site...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 14, 2007 3:47:42 GMT
Hello Ron,
I would put N. rajah, N. villosa, N. ephippiata and N. lowii as having similarities based on the large pitchers (less so for N. villosa) and the dense woody nature of the pitchers. Few other species even come close in this regard. However, N. argentii also seems similar to N. villosa, though maybe this is just an example of covergent evolution due to being from extremely high altitudes...
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Aug 14, 2007 4:10:03 GMT
Hey Dave,
On that website, I just wanted to post the maxima pic. I tried to link directly to it but it wouldn't work. I didn't look at the other pictures but whoever owns that site is having some ID problems.
Don't all ultrahighlanders have woody pitchers? I think thats a defining characteristic of an ultrahighlander, and not necessarily a group within ultrahighlanders. Isn't argentii from around 1400 or so? That's intermediate instead of highland or ultrahighland. I don't see that species undergoing convergent evolution with the more typical ultrahighlands because its habitat and growth form is much different. I think argentii experiences the harshest conditions of the genus.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 14, 2007 7:11:24 GMT
Dear Steven,
You are absolutely correct on all points you make. One of my main points for this thread is to get people to look at their plants and notice things about them that maybe they haven't before and also bring these details to everyone else's attention. I really don't know if N. alata is one species, or a group of species... The plants from Luzon island are really quite divergent from those in the southern end of its supposed range. I don't even know much about all these different species that might or might not be in this N. alata group. Perhaps someone could start a new thread about all these plants? Anyone out there with some knowledge about them?
Is N. truncata more similar to N. alata than it is too N. maxima? Perhaps, but the N. alata from Luzon island doesn't really look like either N. alata or N. truncata of Mindanao island. The luzon island N. alata seems to have more in common with N. maxima, the flat peristome, the short fuzzy indumentum, the large glandular boss at the base of the lid, the dark coloration, the shape of the pitcher opening...
The Nepenthes of the Philippines need a lot more research/work done...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 28, 2007 18:46:19 GMT
Dear Clint, In what way(s) are N. spectabilis and N. maxima similar? Also, in general, I know next to nothing about N. vogelii. I put it on the list to see if anyone had anything to add about the way they thinks it relates to N. maxima. If nobody thinks they are similar, I'll remove from the list. I'm really sketchy about making a Nepenthes alata group. unlike N. maxima and related species, what species are extremely close to N. alata? So far, every group I've seen looks artifacial to me. For example, do we put species into the alata group because they don't have infundibular form upper pitchers? Seems a little too vague to me. There is definetely a maxima-group and an insignsis grouping of related species. There appears to be two (N. enermis-N. flava-N. talagensis) and (N. diatas-N. spathulata) other unnamed groups involving plants from Malaysia and Sumatra and maybe a third gymnamphora group (into this group would probably go N. spectabilis). I always thought alata should have it's own complex. I think that N. clipeata, N. truncata, and maybe even N. chaniana are distinct enough (there's the big arguement!) that they should not be included. If some of the others like N. platychila and N. vogelii are included, then certainly N. spectabilis should be included. I also push for more use of subspecies status. I think the whole genus needs a good cleaning and reorganizing.
|
|