|
Post by ICPS-bob on Apr 27, 2007 23:47:11 GMT
Jumaat H. Adam and Hafiza A. Hamid: Pitcher Plants (Nepenthes) Recorded from Keningau-Kimanis Road in Sabah, Malaysia. International Journal of Botany 2 (4): 431-436, 2006. www.scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=ijb.2006.431.436&linkid=pdfThe authors elevate Nepenthes zakriana ((Adam & Wilcock) Adam & Hafiza) to species level from the earlier described Nepenthes curtisii ssp. zakriana (Adam & Wilcock), which they state has a very close affinity to Nepenthes fusca. The authors also describe a new species, Nepenthes naquiyuddinii (Adam & Hafiza), which they state is very closely related to Nepenthes reinwardtiana.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on May 16, 2007 19:06:09 GMT
Hey Folks,
Speaking as an independent scientist, I'll tell you that I'm exceedingly dissatisfied with this paper. It is riddled with errors.
The new species name N. naquiyuddinii for a kind of N. reinwardtiana without eye-spots is certainly without merit. It might simply be a regular N. reinwardtiana, or perhaps a hybrid, but I don't intend to adopt a new species name for this! (Remember that sometimes N. tobaica shows eye-spots. Time to give it a name, too?)
Also, the so-named N. zakriana is probably just going to be relegated to synonymy with N. stenophylla or N. maxima by most researchers. By the way, the "N. curtisii" cited by the authors is almost certainly a mere synonym for N. maxima.
This lab has also recently named another species, N. sharifah-hapsahii, which is no doubt going to be relegated to oblivion as a simply hybrid between N. gracilis and N. mirabilis. Sigh.
Something else that bothers me about these papers is that while the authors kindly publish their work in English, I really wish they'd include the services of a native-English speaker in their publications. The grammar is so obscure at times that I simply cannot understand what they are saying. It's an embarrassment to the journal, as far as I'm concerned.
Barry
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on May 16, 2007 20:34:27 GMT
I think people are getting bored and just itching for new species There are splitters and lumpers and then there are people who need step back and use some common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on May 17, 2007 0:56:31 GMT
Barry, The situation is rather complex. Note N. curtsii is from Borneo, where there is no reliable records of N. maxima... From reading this paper, I have a difficult time understanding that these new taxa are not hybrids. But hey, hybrids need names too, right? It appears to me, the authors believe these species are distinct, but like all science, someone else will have to prove it. Right now, I am not convinced these taxa are species in other than naming rank. I have seen a lot of clones of N. reinwardtiana and N. gracilis, but occasionally I have seen plants labeled such, but they were not. I have no idea what they were, perhaps hybrids... Species which can have eye spots include: N. angasanensis, N. fallax, N. reinwardtiana, N. sanguinea, N. tentaculata and N. tobaica. N. fallax/stenophylla is distinct. N. burbidgeae, N. chaniana and N. glandulifera appear to be closely related. I actually watched on TV as researchers discovered a new location for both N. tentaculata and N. fallax (Mount Cooley?), even though they didn't know the names beyond " Nepenthes", I knew what they found just from my living room as both species are so distinct. There is no way this new taxon could be lumped into N. fallax, but rather it appears to be a subspecies of N. fusca. N. fusca, like its closest relative, N. maxima, is exceedingly variable. Hey Folks, Speaking as an independent scientist, I'll tell you that I'm exceedingly dissatisfied with this paper. It is riddled with errors. The new species name N. naquiyuddinii for a kind of N. reinwardtiana without eye-spots is certainly without merit. It might simply be a regular N. reinwardtiana, or perhaps a hybrid, but I don't intend to adopt a new species name for this! (Remember that sometimes N. tobaica shows eye-spots. Time to give it a name, too?) Also, the so-named N. zakriana is probably just going to be relegated to synonymy with N. stenophylla or N. maxima by most researchers. By the way, the " N. curtisii" cited by the authors is almost certainly a mere synonym for N. maxima. Barry
|
|
|
Post by borneo on May 17, 2007 4:48:08 GMT
When a hybrid becomes a species may be a million dollar question and is being debated on other forums. It may be rather easier to answer the question: When does a hybrid not become a species? Umm, maybe when you are wandering around your University campus one day and you see N. gracilis x mirabilis growing in a ditch, a plant thousands have noticed before? Oh yes! Let's name it as a species after our boss, the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Dato' Dr. Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin, to ingraciate ourselves. Of course, it would never pass peer review in a respected journal so we'd have to publish it in a completely obscure journal. While we're at it, why not call the National Press as well, to inflate the 'find' still further.
As a commercial Nepenthes producer, this matters not a wit to me, other than the fact that I happen to care about the status of the genus and know that serious taxonomists go to great lengths, sometimes delaying publication for years in order to check the veracity of their claims before they go to press. This makes a mockery of their painstaking work.
N. jacquelineae and N. jamban have been mentioned in other forums in comparison with Dr. Adam's publications. No comparison! There is little room for doubt that those are distinct species. The more recent publications we're discussing should be disregarded, of that there is no question, million dollar or otherwise. If we take them seriously, the flood gates may open to similar nonsense, with chaos as a result.
I myself have 'discovered' very may plants that I reasonably assume to be hybids (including all of Dr. Adams 'new' finds). How do I judge? Well, if in amongst a big colony of N. reinwardtiana I find a single plant that appears to be a cross with N. fusca, which I know grows nearby, I don't rush it into press as a new species.
N. gracilis and N. mirabilis are amongst the foremeost parents of Nepenthes hybrids in Borneo. They flower for a lot of the year, not just seasonally, and have been recorded to cross with every other species in their vicinity. The resultant hybrids do not warrant species status IMHO.
If Dr. Adam would like to respond, I will take my corner.
|
|
|
Post by borneo on May 17, 2007 6:23:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on May 17, 2007 16:03:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by borneo on May 17, 2007 17:15:52 GMT
Hey Michael! Where have you been?!
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on May 17, 2007 17:59:41 GMT
Excellent discussion. This is precisely why I created this thread. I think there needs to be more open and critical discussion of information published in the literature. Some journals do an admirable job of peer review and screening questionable papers, but other journals are less concerned about scientific rigor. Press releases are a poor source of accurate information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on May 17, 2007 19:14:22 GMT
Hey Michael! Where have you been?! I got re-married in 2002. My wife and I have 6 kids between us. My schedule has been kinda full. I hope things have been going and growing very well with you! Excellent discussion. This is precisely why I created this thread. I think there needs to be more open and critical discussion of information published in the literature. Some journals do an admirable job of peer review and screening questionable papers, but other journals are less concerned about scientific rigor. Press releases are a poor source of accurate information. Here are a few things I got from just the Nepenthes naquiyuddinii section: 1. They compared these plants to specimens of N. reinwardtiana in their own collection. They should be comparing them to N. reinwardtiana plants in the wild, especially in the location where they found this plant, as they are reported to grow together. They should also make comparisons to herbarium sheets of the type plants of N. reinwardtiana. 2. They list the plant at an elevation of 1400-1424 meters. This is a rediculously small variance in elevation, so they are only dealing with one location, or multiple locations along a road that does not vary its elevation by much. 3. They use the phrase in their publication "Our field observation showed that it grows together with N. reinwardtiana....." Their use of the phrase "field observation" translates into a "a single observation." This could be a translation error, which I hope it would be, because it would be downright irresponsible to publish a species elevation on a single trip to a location when it is abundantly clear that the plant bears a striking resemblance to another Nepenthes species which is found growing with it. Multiple observations need to be made to determine what other species grow within its range, and then attempt to exclude each hybrid possibility. Now, there are certainly somenew species which have been discovered in which the plant was so remarkably different from any known described species that it is abundantly obvious that it is a new species. Thats understandable, and I prefer a quick description of the species so that if it has a very limited range, attempts could be made to protect the habitat if needed. This plant so easily looks like a possible hybrid with N. reinwardtiana that if they hadnt mentioned N. reinwardtiana grows with this plant, my first question would have been "How close by does N. reinwardtiana grow to this plant?" There has been a very liberal application of species level within Nepenthes. I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem with hapharzardly elevating plants that could be hybrids or simply ecads of another species unless very detailed studies have been done. If we are going to use such minimal efforts in species elevation, then I'll get a group of people together and head down to the gulf coast this weekend. If we cant elevate at least 50 Sarracenia plants to species level, I will be greatly disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on May 17, 2007 19:21:48 GMT
Hey Bob,
I'd be embarrassed if I were the editor of the journal that published those articles.
Not all the content in CPN is reviewed, so it's not quite as "prestigious" as the International Journal of Botany. But man, I can't see how those articles would have made it through the CPN pre-publication review process. We'd have sent them to real referees.
Barry
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on May 17, 2007 20:11:41 GMT
If we cant elevate at least 50 Sarracenia plants to species level, I will be greatly disappointed. Sounds familiar...
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on May 17, 2007 20:45:51 GMT
I agree wholeheartedly! Aside from the hybrid issue is the possibilities of a "sport" that randomly occurs within a population. Anyone who has raised Nepenthes from seed has probably seen this first hand. Some species (and even certain populations within a species) seem to be more or less prone to producing these random “sports”. Sometimes these sports have a minor and subtle difference to the rest of the population; but other times a striking difference is noticed; but the fact remains that these sports are generally isolated, individual plants, and usually aren’t found as well established populations; whether this warrants the elevation to new species status is debatable, and presents a rather weak argument at that.
As for "N. curtsii", this was an old name for N. maxima, that was grown in Longwood Gardens, carried over from a collection originally from Kew Gardens, UK.
Their N. x wittei turns out to be a natural hybrid between N. fusca and N. albomarginata, and a band of fine white pubescence is clearly visible just under the peristome, otherwise, it looks very much like a N. fusca, albeit a rather large one!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 10, 2007 0:48:33 GMT
***Update*** After doing more research and if I understand this better: While N. curtsii was noted as from Borneo, authors from that time frame often tried to mislead people into thinking the plants were actually from somewhere else to conceal the location from other interested parties. It is believed by most currect authors that N. curtsii which Curtis grew from seed was actually collected from Sulawesi, same as N. maxima.
So Barry and Rich, this N. zakriana plant is probably closer to N. fusca, than to N. maxima. Also, it does look more like N. fusca than that orange/red colored plant called "N. fusca Sarawak". And I do not just refer to the coloration, but overall shape of the plants. The Sarawak plants are more robust and have very strongly petiolate leaves the lower section of the lower pitchers are swollen; whereas N. fusca and the new N. zakriana have weakly petiolate leaves and the lower pitchers are cylindrical.
Honestly, I have a difficult time combining all three of these into one species. Rich, I think you have mentioned the same thing about this Sarawak orange plant too...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 10, 2007 0:55:50 GMT
Nepenthes naquiyuddinii = N. reinwardtiana * N. gracilis, as far as I can tell. It is not the same thing as N. reinwardtiana as most others posting here seem to be indicating. This is easily noticed when reviewing the photos, and also their description of the plants. The strong mid rib on the lid is really odd... Neither N. gracilis nor N. reinwardtiana have this feature. But the new N. zakriana does...
|
|