|
|
Post by sockhom on Jul 8, 2008 23:48:46 GMT -10
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 9, 2008 1:53:10 GMT -10
Hi Francois:
The Nepenthes gracillima was rediscovered by S. Macpherson, but it was previouly reviewed by Martin Cheek in Flora Malesiana volume 15, 2001.
The drawings of Cheek match Macpherson's photographs. I still don't understand how this N. alba was mistaken for gracillima.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by twoton on Jul 9, 2008 2:21:52 GMT -10
Who described this plant?
|
|
|
|
Post by sockhom on Jul 9, 2008 2:34:48 GMT -10
Hi Gus  . I have read Jebb and Cheeks notes on N. gracillima a few times. They seem to confuse both species. They wrote in their notes (p. 70) that the upper pitchers of N. gracillima are "green in their lower part, becoming pale to ivory". That fits with the Mc pherson and Ridley's N. alba. - This plant is what we currently know (and grow) as N. gracillima. It was previously described as N. alba (1924). Lower: www.redfernnaturalhistory.com/album/plants/photo/435/494upper: www.redfernnaturalhistory.com/album/plants/photo/436/493- Ridley previously (1908)found another plant that he described as N . gracillima. But Danser (1928) has synonymised N. alba and N. gracillima and the late name remained (at that time, he also synonymised N. ramispina with N. gracillima, but that's another story...). Stewart found this plant: lower: www.redfernnaturalhistory.com/album/plants/photo/439/498upper: www.redfernnaturalhistory.com/album/plants/photo/438/496Stewart thinks this is the real gracillima and should be separated from the "white" plant. That's why he wants to reinstate N. alba. Now what I don't get is why Jebb / Cheek's illustration seem to picture the real gracillima. The pictures on page 71 does not fit with the description page 70!! Pictures were drawn by someone called Camilla Speight. Where did she get the models of the plants? I think Jebb and Cheek studied both plants ( gracillima and alba) and deemed them as one single species. Maybe they just checked herbarium material? Stew saw both species in the wild. Who described this plant? A new plant, Hans. It will be described by M. cheek along with N. bokor (N. sp. Cambodia). So, we should write N. kongkandana ined. We're entering a new Nepenthes golden age, mate  ! François. |
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Jul 9, 2008 9:43:10 GMT -10
I am worried now that we'll see more splitting where there really isn't much need for splitting and other species suffering as one species (i.e. N. globosa where the differences goes beyond color differences) where they should be two.
I am opposed of speciation based on color. If that were the case N. rafflesiana could be divided into many many species. I am supportive of truly NEW species and discoveries deserving a name. N. globosa has enough differences for it to be given species status (very different in form, not just based on color), yet two N. gracillima just differences in color can achieve species status is to me, unworthy of nomenclature as a true species name.
N. mirabilis v. echinostoma is another that deserves species status, and so do many others. But the newer names of things we see as even remotely "different" isn't worthy of species status. Of course people will disagree, and sellers will jump to a "new" name to sell an old unsalable species.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by sockhom on Jul 9, 2008 10:17:17 GMT -10
Hi Michael . I quite agree with you that some taxonomic work needs to be done concerning N. "globosa" and N. mirabilis var. echinostoma. They should at least, to my humble opinion, be regarded as subspecies (if not species) if only taxonomists could use the subspecific rank. But, I have never said that the sole difference between N. alba and N. gracillima was the color! All serious Nepenthes students and taxonomists wannabes are well aware that relying on color when it comes to Nepenthes classification is to be avoided. Please, take a look at the pictures. Stewart told me about some other distinctive features, relying on herbarium and field works, but those will be explained in his forthcoming books. Please Michael, do not rush on conclusions so easily. Personally, I prefer to wait for the paper (the books) before formulating any criticism. I'm sure Stewart doesn't care about the commercial suppliers - he proved it in the past. As a matter of fact, N. alba is already quite easily available: it is the plant currently sold as N. gracillima. You can have it for 15 euros at Wistuba (yes, I do know you wouldn't buy those TC ersatz! ;D I have seed grown gracillima, don 't worry) ! Besides, the plant deemed by Stewart as the real gracillima (which is much more stocky and growing as an isolate population) is not in cultivation. speak soon, François. |
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Jul 9, 2008 10:27:50 GMT -10
Oddly the gracillimas I have seen in cultivation are darker, near black. I have also seen reddish-brownish colored forms (BE) and a purplish (MT). Not sure what color AW's clone is. It would be nice for members to show what color their N. graciliima is.
M
|
|
.
!
