|
|
Post by marcello catalano on Dec 27, 2011 4:50:14 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbarden on Dec 27, 2011 4:57:04 GMT 7
I wrote this earlier today in another discussion on the topic:
Something to bear in mind is that although the article cites only the 'Queen of Hearts' clone, that is not the only plant representing this "new species"; the other so-called "royal" clones are from the same population of plants raised from seed by Cantley. (Quotes to this effect coming directly from Rob himself are not hard to find) That means that if one of the clones is going to be assigned a new species designation, then all of the royal clones will (pardon my choice of phrasing) follow suit. Furthermore, that means the 'Queen of Hearts' X 'King of Spades' seedlings will all be redesignated as seedlings of N. robcantleyi, not N. truncata.
Many species undergo a renaming process over time as we learn new things about them and our tools for assessing species traits become more sophisticated; it's a fluid process. Nothing to get upset about, really. What does it matter if all of these "royal" seedlings sent into commerce suddenly turn into N. robcantleyi instead of N. truncata? Does that devalue the plants in any way? Not to my thinking it doesn't. If anything, the people who have bought these seedlings can now claim to be among the first to have this spectacular new species in their collections. For some, this will elevate the value of the plants. In fact, I won't be surprised if the cost of these goes up now!
Now, before we get ahead of ourselves, let's keep in mind that this is just a newspaper article, and we shouldn't assume that just because one botanist thinks this deserves distinct species status that the community will accept that decision and apply it going forward. I think multiple "authorities" will have to weigh in on this before we should accept it as a "done deal". Then there is always the remote possibility that this is just a marketing ploy to push sales of the remaining seedlings available. I wonder how many of the 3000 seedlings BE raised are still unsold?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcello catalano on Dec 27, 2011 5:13:01 GMT 7
What started as a little suspect in my mind is in these last minutes becoming reality. I supposed that for Cheek to name a new species, some gorgeous pitchers were not enough, so I checked a few photos of both truncata and robcantleyi, to see if I could confirm something I had noticed in the past but without giving too much importance to it: the leaf tip that is decurrent along the tendril in robcantleyi, while it's definately truncate in truncata. This, plus some details in the pitchers, can make it a new species. Maybe uh, I don't know all the variations of truncata that well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobh on Dec 27, 2011 5:23:02 GMT 7
I have no opinion about whether this is a valid new species, but the newspaper article is remarkably awful. To start with, it has the wrong plant pictured and refers the plants being native to Borneo (the name of Cantley's business, not where the plants were actually from). I am particularly fond of this image: "The plant, which is believed to be extinct in the wild, continues to exist only through botanists who continually spray it with mist."
I am also intrigued by the next article about "scientists can now read your mind."
|
|
lance
Full Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by lance on Dec 27, 2011 5:29:00 GMT 7
I have no opinion about whether this is a valid new species, but the newspaper article is remarkably awful. To start with, it has the wrong plant pictured and refers the plants being native to Borneo (the name of Cantley's business, not where the plants were actually from). I am particularly fond of this image: "The plant, which is believed to be extinct in the wild, continues to exist only through botanists who continually spray it with mist." I am also intrigued by the next article about "scientists can now read your mind." It looks like a basic news website not a CP website...of course there will be errors they don't grow or know as much as we do with Nepenthes. |
|
|
|
Post by marcello catalano on Dec 27, 2011 5:44:54 GMT 7
God bless the botanists who continually spray these plants with mist!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobh on Dec 27, 2011 6:11:56 GMT 7
Sorry, my criticism of the article was not meant to be overly serious. The problem is that with everything else in the article so inaccurate, it is impossible to know if someone is actually publishing a description of this plant as a new species or if the "reporter" simply misinterpreted a comment by Dr. Cheek.
However, after reading this article, I may look into hiring some botanists to continually spray my own plants.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbarden on Dec 27, 2011 6:23:53 GMT 7
What bob said!
I think articles like this, written by columnists who really don't know a thing about the plant in question, often come off sounding like this: inaccurate at best, often rife with gross exaggerations and loaded with semi-factual nuggets the writer deemed worthy of emphasis. (IE: the continuous spraying with mist, eats infant Monkeys, blah blah blah) Sadly, it ends up pandering to stereotypes and tends to read like tabloid fodder.
I'm sure Bat Boy grows Nepenthes....absolutely certain of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcello catalano on Dec 27, 2011 6:36:23 GMT 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 27, 2011 6:45:40 GMT 7
Some folks use the terms, "cultivar" and "species" interchangeability... In some cases this is actually accurate; in most though, not so much  |
|
|
|
Post by borneo on Dec 27, 2011 12:47:37 GMT 7
Good grief! What an awful newspaper article!  I gave a long telephone interview to an intelligent journalist from the Independent a couple of days back, so I do hope that some better and more accurate articles will be forthcoming - PLEASE! Firstly and fore-mostly, Paul, this really is not some sort of marketing ploy. We sold pretty much all the seedlings ages ago and tried to keep the price reasonable so that it could be spread far and wide. We kept back 300 plants but actually they are already sold, we’re just holding them until the project that bought them is ready to take them. It’s been interesting though, as they are mature enough now to see that there is very little difference in morphology between individuals, so we’re not dealing with a hybrid here. Martins paper goes into this in some depth. I, and every taxonomist who has seen the plants, have known this is a distinct species for many years but until it was published, we couldn’t talk about it, as we knew it was being described elsewhere and it became a race to publish. Martin's paper will be appearing in the December issue of the Nordic Journal of Botany (NJB) any day now but an abstract is already available onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01449.x/abstract Martin Cheek actually wrote the paper 1 ½ years ago and it’s taken that long to get it published. If you see the entire paper – which will be downloadable free I believe from the NJB website - he refers in the paper to our most recent Chelsea appearance being in 2010. So slowly do the cogs of academia turn! The paper goes into detail of course as to why this is a new species. Not just the fact that it has wings on the pitchers when N. truncata does not, or that the peristome ribs are so widely spaced but the flower is different and the glandular structure under the lid is utterly different, being pretty much identical to N. veitchii and nothing like N. truncata. As to the name, I didn’t have an inkling what name Martin would choose until after the paper was written. Can’t say I mind really. So, it’s time to change your labels I’m afraid! Merry Christmas everyone and happy New Year! Rob |
|
|
|
Post by ep on Dec 27, 2011 18:47:24 GMT 7
Hi All, Am I missing something here? In 2007, borneo made the following statements. The questions in blue are from another grower and the rest is borneo's answer, which seems to be contrary to the statement that Marcello inserted in the other post on the black truncatas. The text in red clearly states that the seed was not collected by Rob Cantley and was all mixed together and may have been from several plants. I recall when the BE released the Pasian truncatas most buyers were extremely dissappointed after paying $US180 or more assuming they were getting black truncatas or at least coloured highland ones. Yet out of all this seed 8 black plants germinated and these are new species??? This is usually what happens when there are hybrids in with species seed as you have experienced. These black "truncatas" are fantastic plants and it is a shame that you saw fit to stop them coming to Australia(until 10 recently which were gone before we knew about them) so we could not buy any of them, Rob, but that is business, so they say. I would have liked to get a better look at them.  . Why were you concerned if we got them? I am pretty sure we will breed identical plants in the near future. I have a good idea where the 'black' gene came from and as one can see in the pic below, we are getting pretty close, and these are pure N.truncata. Also while reading about these plants I saw that you mentioned that there was no known all green N.truncata! Please see pic below. Perhaps we can call this a new species or at least N.truncata f.alba. Looking forward to your reply.   |
|
|
|
Post by Sockhom on Dec 27, 2011 19:39:59 GMT 7
|
|
dm84
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by dm84 on Dec 27, 2011 21:28:24 GMT 7
At the time of the site visits was the Phillipine government aware that a potentially new species was in peril due to the logging efforts? Did this issue raise any concern with the Philippine government at the time the seed collecting permits were issued?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbarden on Dec 27, 2011 21:28:50 GMT 7
Well, congratulations to Rob Cantley! (and my apologies for suggesting this might have been a marketing ploy!) This is quite exciting to have these individuals recognized as a distinct species, and a bonus to get it named after you. Kudos to Dr. Cheek for recognizing the subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences that suggested this was a previously unknown species. I'm sure everyone lucky enough to have one of the seedlings is thrilled with this news.
Happy New Year back to you, sir!
Paul
|
|
Apr 23, 2013 11:20:05 GMT 7
May 3, 2013 6:20:06 GMT 7
*