|
|
Post by Volker on Nov 11, 2011 15:58:38 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by dexenthes on Nov 12, 2011 5:00:59 GMT 7
That's awesome. I particularly am fond of specie "c". Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Predator08 on Nov 12, 2011 11:06:58 GMT 7
I bought the book yesterday , it's really nice and inexpensive!, nepenthes pulchra ( Latin for beautiful) and nepenthes Cecilsomething
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 12, 2011 12:12:57 GMT 7
Ha! Well now we know exactly what is N. copelandii's closest relative.
|
|
leeb
Full Member
Posts: 182
|
Post by leeb on Nov 13, 2011 5:19:07 GMT 7
The books details are on the Redfern Natural History Website; The names (as yet unpublished formally) are N. ceciliae and N. pulchra.
Given the number of new Nepenthes from the Philippines that have been shown on the Philippines part of this website by Ayi and others the book is going to need to be updated regularly.
LeeB.
|
|
|
|
Post by Volker on Nov 14, 2011 4:54:16 GMT 7
N. ceciliae is referring to the wife (she passed away last year) of Dr. Amoroso.
|
|
|
|
Post by threeskins on Nov 15, 2011 19:01:39 GMT 7
Very nice although it does look like a large N.petiolata
|
|
|
|
Post by ayi on Nov 16, 2011 11:06:47 GMT 7
In my very humble opinion, I feel that both Nepenthes ceciliae and N. pulchra are nothing more than variants of N. copelandii and N. petiolata, respectively. These are just some of the recently published names whose distinctness as species entities are debatable rather than thoroughly conclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 16, 2011 14:55:01 GMT 7
Hello (Ayi),
it is very easy to say this when only looking at photos - in this case only from the pitchers - and not having seen the plants in the wild.
I contributed to the descriptions of both species and have seen them in the wild conclusively. They differ clearly from their relatives in several respects (especially by means of overall and leaf morphology that can not been seen on the displayed photos) - much more than any of the N.alata separations discussed in this forum differs from N.alata.
For example the lower pitchers of N.ceciliae are completely different from that of N.copelandii.
Also renowned experts like Stewart McPherson (who co-authors N.pulchra), Andreas Wistuba and Victor Amoroso from CMU (who discovered N.ceciliae first) aggree that these two are good species.
So my suggestion: Read the descriptions first and than post again here if you still find the diagnosis as separate species is not conclusive.
Cheers
Thomas.
PS The pitchers of N.pulchra DO indeed resemble a large N.petiolata with expanded peristome. There are some subtile differences besides the overall size; see my post below.But in my opinion the main difference ist the strongly decurrent leaf attachmemt that N.petiolata (as the name suggests) does not have. and other details of the overall morphology.
Please remember: The strongly decurrent leaf attachments separate N.saranganiensis from N.alata.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayi on Nov 16, 2011 23:14:19 GMT 7
Hi Thomas,
I am anxious to know exactly how many type sheets for Nepenthes petiolata exists, and if there are similar plants on the intervening areas between the locus classicus of N. petiolata and N. pulchra. Because only a thorough examination of the sheets and further fieldwork will tell us about the range of variation exhibited by a given species. Unfortunately, there isn't a great deal of sheets available for N. petiolata, and therefore we really do not know the extent of variation it might display, especially when and if plants are found growing away from where they were originally collected. Really, I do not mind having the object at hand described as a species distinct from N. petiolata, but I'd rather personally prefer that N. petiolata's plasticity as a species be reviewed first before describing a similar plant as a new species. For all we know, N. pulchra might be better treated instead as a subspecies or variety of N. petiolata- as of the moment we do not know for sure. You mentioned that 'the pitcher morphology does not separate it from N. petiolata...' but leaf morphology does. From my perspective, that is just one primary character, and one species cannot be delineated from another by one primary character alone.
Nepenthes saranganiensis is very different from N. alata- if we talk about the N. alata that fits the type description. Otherwise it's all a can of worms.
I am also a taxonomist and please forgive me if I am taking a very careful stance. But I believe that people who describe plants and animals as new should always leave room for variation, especially since some species appear differently when found in a different ecological niche. My overriding view at the moment about N. alata is that there might be forms that can possibly be segregated as distinct species, subspecies or varieties. But because I would much rather see the bigger picture first by having samples from all over the archipelago be thoroughly scrutinized, I have opted, at least for the time being, not to make any step that will lead to the establishment of a new species.
If you could send me a description of N. pulchra, I'd be more than happy to see it and will retract my view if necessary.
Best regards,
Ayi
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 17, 2011 3:52:32 GMT 7
Ayi, as soon as I have the two descriptions as final version in pdf format and Stewarts book is in press I am happy to send them to you. Please come back to me via email: quincy(at)operamail.com Unfortunately, there is only one incomplete sheet of N.petiolata; without flowers. As you might know, N.petiolata was collected by Adolph Elmer on Mt.Masay in today's Agusan del Norte province in 1915 or so. He distributed several sheets of his N.surigaoensis and for one he noted that it "might contain another species". Danser reviewed the sheets later, reduced N.surigaoensis to N.merrilliana and recognized that the sheet in question indeed contained another species. Based on the petiolate leaf attachment he described the plant as N.petiolata. To my knowledge no one has visited the locus classicus until I went there together with Volker in 2007 (afterwards we reinstalled N.surigaoensis as species) and again with Stewart in 2008. All known observations on N.petiolata until then were made on the neighbouring Mt. Hilong Hilong - and to my knowledge only there. From N.pulchra, we have now a complete holotype including flowers. Basically, the sentence "the pitcher morphology does not separate it from N.petiolata" is a little misleading. I have corrected it in the post above. There are several differences like the appendage (present in pulchra, generally absent in petiolata), peristome morphology (often flatened in pulchra; not flatened in petiolata) and morphology of the upper pitchers (elongated with swollen bottom section) but based on these I would not have separated it into a new species. The fact is: It is simply not petiolate at all. Please have a look here too for more photos: forum.carnivoren.org/index.php?/topic/31242-neue-nepenthesarten-von-den-philippinen/Cheers Thomas. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 18, 2011 7:22:44 GMT 7
Dear Ayi,
That species, N. pulchra, doesn't remind me of N. petiolata; while N. ceciliae does look rather similar to N. copelandii.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayi on Nov 18, 2011 19:26:19 GMT 7
It just occurred to me that I have two plants of Nepenthes pulchra. Now I really need to see the original description...
|
|
|
|
Post by Volker on Nov 20, 2011 9:41:22 GMT 7
To make things a little more confusing, here some petiolata images taken on some ridge near Mt. Masay (the ones on Mt. Hilong Hilong have indeed non-decurrent laminae): Thomas ear   The pitcher  About the petioalism of the same plant  PS: thomas: Let me know if you need fresh seeds of N. pulchra |
|
|
|
Post by ayi on Nov 20, 2011 10:30:46 GMT 7
So I guess there really is overlap? Another thing I noticed is that the peristome lobes beneath the lid are separated by a narrow gap in both Nepenthes petiolata and N. pulchra. And another: Thomas mentioned something about the peristome of N. pulchra to be expanded. From what I have personally seen, and also based from the description, the peristome in N. petiolata are broad. Just exactly how we are going to differentiate 'expanded' from 'broad' might be a matter of subjectivity.
|
|
