Post by agustinfranco on May 2, 2006 17:28:21 GMT 7
I was referring to the other way around. typical hamata was the product of a form of tentaculata with another toothy Nep. We still tend to inadvertently forget that species do come from stable hybrid populations. If we don't have gene exchange between plants, these could easily be extinct due to their inability to adapt to an ever changing environment. Let's not forget that the genetic work done on these plants is minimal due to their limited interest from people like us and those involved in scientific work with similar interests. We can hypothesize forever and ever and yet not have some solid argument unless we prove these hypotheses in a lab setting.
Anyway, hopefully sometime in the future, someone will be able to answer these questions.
What SydneyNeps said. We call it speciation, but he called it divergent evolution. Same thing. There's a root species that these are came from(it may even be extinct), but also hamata may be an evolutionary spin-off from tentaculata. Tentaculata has a much wider geographical range than hamata, so it would be easy to conjecture that it is the "root species".
Or... I don't know exactly how the uppers on bear claw look, so I can only speculate on this one;
Maybe , if the uppers on hairy hamata have a very small peristome (think uppers on regular hamata but without teeth), then the hybrid would have more teeth. Think about it. Isn't it strange the the uppers on typical hamata have so few teeth, and virtualy no peristome in between? What function would this serve? I believe that if a hairy hamata were crossed with tentaculata, you would have a hybrid that obviously retains its teeth in the lowers. But, whereas the uppers on hairy hamata have very little peristome formation, the hybrid with tentaculata would give the hybrid a larger peristome than the toothed parent, giving us the form of typical hamata. I.e., cross a wide peristome plant with a small peristome plant, and you get something in between. Cross a plant with few ribs and a highly reduced peristiome with a plant that has more peristome, and more ribs, then you'd get something in between, a typical hamata.
Hybridising would actualy give the hairy hamata a MORE robust peristome in the uppers.
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” “The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about” “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
Post by Rainforest Carnivores on May 3, 2006 10:13:37 GMT 7
I don't think that hamata is a hybrid because it is much slower growing than tentaculata and large over exaggerated peristomes are the outcomes of living in a particular environment with a specific target prey. They just don't make big teeth as a hybrid by-product. Big teeth is an evolutionary advancement of that species as is the fin back of Dimetrodons or the claws of Veloceraptors. These just don't happen from scratch, but from timely evolutionary advancements. N. hamata has a specifc range and may overlap tentaculata, but the two are as distinct as N. rafflesiana and ampullaria even when these two share the same habitat. Hairs on lids may just be a by-product of their environment where some biological advantage is required by it. Testing it by crossing N. tentaculata x hamata can prove many things. If a dominant form is prevalent in the progeny, then perhaps it might have once evolved from a common ancestor. Time will tell.
Post by agustinfranco on May 3, 2006 18:56:17 GMT 7
Going back to Dr. Jebb's findings: Out of a main branch of a phylogenetic tree goes into 5 small branches. The species closest to muluensis is murudensis (no big surprise), the species closest to hamata is glabrata. Surprisingly tentaculata even though related to these 4, is alone in another branch. In other words, it is not as closely related to Hamata and the other 3 neps as we would think.
Genetic analysis of plant DNA is often based on highly conserved DNA sequences so any minor change is taken into account when making these phylogenetic trees.
The only thing needed here to add even more validity to the study is to take the DNA from all of the tentaculatas and make another phylogenetic tree which includes hamata and the hairy hamata.
I do believe, however, that the relatedness of a tentaculata from sulawesi will be closer to hamata than a tentaculata from Borneo, due to their respective geographical locations. Again, i'd like to reiterate that these findings demonstrate that gene sharing is a fact and often occurs between 2 or more species occupying the same habitat. futhermore, looks are not only the only factor by which species must be classified.
Post by agustinfranco on Jun 5, 2007 12:58:24 GMT 7
I was not referring to plants called hamatas hybrids being called hamatas, but to the hairy form and the regular form. I believe that the regular hamata may come from the hairy form, since the regular hamata resembles a lot like some forms of tentaculata, so it's very possible that the hairy form is the ancestor to the regular form and perhaps the regular form came about with successive hybridizations to the tentaculata sulawesi form.
In any event, these are just hypotheses. They need to be proven. Just food for thought
Post by nepenthes369 on Jun 5, 2007 16:51:14 GMT 7
I understood that it was a hypothesis but thank you for the quik summary it did help make sense of the misunderstood parts of the tangledment. I was really looking forward of the two var. of hamata hairy/non-hairy though i'm a highly visual learner.
thatoneplantboi: Hey guys, I'm new to growing nepenthes, I'm getting a mini indoor greenhouse to grow them in. What kind of light should I use for them? Also, if you could provide a link to a product, it would be very much appreciated
Oct 5, 2017 10:16:29 GMT 7
borneo: Yes, they work superbly. But you don't need expensive lights, cheap ones work well too.
Sept 2, 2018 14:34:57 GMT 7
mylesg: i havent checked in here for a while, why does it seem all the CP forums have lost their once strong activity? the trade/sale section used to be so active and now its a ghost town. where is everybody hanging out these days for a strong online CP community?
Dec 9, 2018 3:15:01 GMT 7
mylesg: Happy holidays to everyone out there!
Dec 26, 2018 0:23:13 GMT 7
lance: Everyone left the forums and moved to facebook groups.
Oct 2, 2019 12:09:05 GMT 7
mylesg: yes, facebook groups will never have same feel as this place once did
Nov 3, 2019 8:34:22 GMT 7
etiennecancio: perhaps we can try to revitalize the old forums? i always found them to be much more convenient than facebook groups at least hah
Nov 4, 2019 17:01:25 GMT 7
mylesg: i refuse to abandon this place, i am posting in my grow thread with many photos and always there to answer any questions just built new grow room and tons of pitcher shots!
Nov 6, 2019 21:17:59 GMT 7
vidyut: hey mylesg. glad to hear that. Love this forum. Facebook can't organize knowledge like this. Will participate as much as I can.
Nov 25, 2019 5:37:09 GMT 7
vidyut: Photobucket has ruined this place and many other forum archives with years and years of photos worth referencing now blurred. Priceless information hostage to services once free, begging for adoption, arbitrarily monetized.
Nov 25, 2019 16:28:58 GMT 7
bonfield: This forum is almost at 13K total threads, I can't wait to read the topic that pushes it past the mark!
Dec 3, 2019 8:27:58 GMT 7
arvin555: I do not like FB forums because it is difficult to read back Archives. Let us keep this forum alive!
Dec 9, 2019 11:14:09 GMT 7
mylesg: just posted ton of new pics in my thread!
Feb 9, 2020 3:40:25 GMT 7
bonfield: If you think the situation on this forum is bad, you should see what that those creeps Justin Dunning and Kurtis Herperger(Victoria Butterfly Gardens), Willy Chung, and Lloyd Gordon did to the Canadian forums: www.butterflygardens.ca
Jun 1, 2021 7:14:40 GMT 7