tatei or neblinae? that is the question

[av8tor1]

What are the defining differences between these two species?

The more I read the more confused I get, it seems that even the "gold standard" descriptions conflict. One source says the nectar spoon is highly variable, one says its critical... etc etc etc.

I cant seem to find a good, consistent answer to the question. Surely I am not alone in this quest for knowledge, so lets bring it to the floor for open discussion please.

Thanks in advance,
Butch

[jeff]

the nectar spoon form is not the same .


jeff

[av8tor1]

Jeff, can you link to some pics showing an example of each please... What about the exterior of the pitcher being pubescent or glabrous, does this factor have any significance in separating neblinae from tatei?

And are H. neblinae f. parva and H.neblinae f. virdis still considered valid forms? If so what are their defining characteristics?

I know I'm asking for black and white answers, but it seems there are two main schools of thought that conflict on this species. Both are highly respected, one is the main source of the H. neblinae in cultivation and the other is the main source of text used by hobbyist. One states that most H. neblinae in circulation are not correct, the other states they are.

This seems to be a topic everyone avoids now due to the conflict.

With the average hobbyist stuck in the middle...

Soooooooo?

[Dave Evans]

I don't think there is all that much confusion. Perhaps you're taking McPherson's comments out of context and there isn't all that much of a "conflict".

The mounatians these plants are from are well removed from each other. If the pattern of species distributions are similar in the west to those in the east; it would be rather difficult to apply "lumping" logic. The same Heliamphora are only found near each other and each species has a rather small range, native to a specific area. Neblina and the three mountains where H. tatei are separated by over 200 Kilometers. Based on what we know now, today not 20 years back, that it is basically impossible for these two taxa to be considered one species simply on the impossible range shape.

Years ago, Wistuba used to sell H. neblinae as H. tatei var. neblinae. In turn, many growers dropped the "var. neblinae" part of the label and now many N. neblinae are stuck labled as "H. tatei".

So just to confuse you further, both Wistuba and McPherson are correct.

I also have a question. Why is it everytime I bother to look at Wikipedia, there is something which needs fixed? I look there for some forgotten information and find this BS, "All Heliamphora species are endemic to the Tepuis of the Guiana Highlands in the tripoint Venezuela, Guyana and Brazil, except H. heterodoxa and H. sarracenioides, which also occur in the Gran Sabana."

Sorry, but no H. sarracenioides is not found in the Great Savana. Duh.

[jeff]

the taxonomy change as one goes along we know more the specie,what was valid in the last century is no valid now ( or not exact).

see my web site to have a beginning of answer.

for me the gran sabana is a area with a lot of tepuis where you can find a lot of species , strictly in the gran sabana under the tepuis we find H.heterodoxa and may be others

[av8tor1]

Thank you for the responses, they are appreciated. I had also made an inquiry on the Cp listserv. Fernado Rivadavia and Andreas Fleischmann have joined the discussion with some excellent first hand information and observations. The question of neblinae vs. tatei is indeed a complicated one. I encourage anyone with an interest in this subject to read their comments, they are among the best I've seen on the subject!

Cheers'
Av

[jeff]

see the discoverer description ( useful also)

for H.tatei the GLEASON description
for H.neblinae the MAGUIRE description

may be also from MAGUIRE the H.macdonaldae and the H.tyleri description.

jeff

[kby]

Jul 1, 2010 3:06:41 GMT Dave Evans said:

I don't think there is all that much confusion. Perhaps you're taking McPherson's comments out of context and there isn't all that much of a "conflict".

I find McPherson's text to be a bit broad and definitive sounding on a number of things, such as his comments that "most of the xxx in cultivation are really yyy." How many collections did he see? I could an accept "some of" or even "many of" without much conflict, but "most of" seems a bit more controversial to me without harder evidence. He also tends to not acknowledge controversy even when it's a fairly well-known one; this is more apparent in the Sarracenia section where is his definitely in (in Barry's terms) the "Schnell" camp. There's nothing wrong with being there; I'd just like to know there's other valid positions.

It's not helped that he's a bit self-contradicting about the Heliamphora hybrids. He says in the individual species sections that there are various hybrids, but then says in the "natural hybrids" section there's only 5 observed ones and doesn't include some of the ones he earlier said were "known" (e.g. he lists H. exappendiculata as being "known to hybridize only with H. pulchella" in the H. exappendiculata section, but the only hybrid with exappendiculata he lists in the "natural hybrids section" is H. exappendiculata x glabra).

That said, the pictures and habitat descriptions are really great. I just don't read the text for definitive statements.

-kby

[jeff]

for instant I think it must be based on descriptions of the discoverers, they were the first to associate a name to a description, so in taxonomy they have for them the rule of the anteriority .
jeff

[Sockhom]

Hi,

Actually, the textual descriptions are not that important. Especially for a poorly known genus such as Heliamphora. What truly matters is an in depth comparison of the types specimens.


François.

[jeff]

I do not agree at all, the basis of taxonomy is the description of specimens found in association with a name at first, just after the comparison to refine the diagnosis

we can not ignore what has been done on this genus since one century , may be more on some species .

jeff

[Sockhom]

Nov 11, 2010 8:45:31 GMT jeff said:

I do not agree at all, the basis of taxonomy is the description of specimens found in association with a name at first, just after the comparison to refine the diagnosis

we can not ignore what has been done on this genus since one century , may be more on some species .

jeff

Jeff,

I know the basis of taxonomy, trust me .
I didn't say that we have to ignore the descriptions themselves but when it comes to a poorly known genus, the study of the types only can bring true insight. They're just a "translation" of the collected material used as a type(s). We need someone to check the neblinae and tatei types, and better go compare the plants in the field and, if necessary, collect new material of both taxa. Or make DNA analysis.
Old descriptions are often incomplete and lots of them should be amended. I have studied a lot of dried material in various herbaria these last years and you would be surprised to see how many plants belonging to the same taxon have been described as different species just because the texts highlights minor or unstable characters. Some species descriptions have even been written based on a selection of different species, considered at the time as one species. And this is a regular occurence in taxonomy.
I have no opinion about neblinae/tatei because I'm no expert and I didn't see the types. All I say is that you can't consider old texts as sacred truth. Only 5 taxa (6, with H. tyleri) have been described prior to H. neblinae descritpion (1978).
Texts can change, not the types.

François.

[jeff]

"Old descriptions are often incomplete and lots of them should be amended"

I am ok with you ,but without changing the name , the descriptions are not immuable,and often needs to be expanded.

"I have studied a lot of dried material in various herbaria these last years and you would be surprised to see how many plants belonging to the same taxon have been described as different species just because the texts highlights minor or unstable characters. Some species descriptions have even been written based on a selection of different species, considered at the time as one species. And this is a regular occurence in taxonomy "

yes I know that for the pinguicula and the ant plants , normally to have a good specie 2 test must be made : perenity on 3 year and reproductibility , for pinguicula and the ant plant it is the rule , we can use also all the infraspecific name : subsp , var, f

"I have no opinion about neblinae/tatei because I'm no expert and I didn't see the types. All I say is that you can't consider old texts as sacred truth"

these old texts are not sacred but we need to know them and to be inspired by them for the diagnosis , in the genus pinguicula much error would have been avoided if they had been read.

"Texts can change, not the types." yes but to have a type it is necessary to have a holotype description in first ( old or actual for the new species )

jeff