'Hairy' hamata reviewed

[osmosis]

I have been growing the 'hairy hamata' since 2005 when I got them at a very small size


I was hooked by the gorgeous photos by Chi'en - surely this is the ultimate carnivorous plant with hair and teeth


Now, 6 years later, with my largest plant flowering and with an upper I thought it would be interesting to review the considerable differences between it and the 'normal' type - under my conditions at least

Most strikingly, it is massively smaller. I think I can say that with confidence now it shows all the signs of maturity. The pitchers never got more than a few inches high and it is a slow grower, especially when young


In stark contrast to it's big brother a few feet away


The lower pitchers are tubby, not elongated



It abandoned a rosette and vined early, with a thin climbing stem



The upper pitchers (assuming mine is not intermediate or atypical anyway) have not developed the characteristic teeth of the normal form uppers, but have retained red colouration



'Hairy'


'Normal'

The flowers of my two plants are not the same sex, so I can't compare directly, but I include them for interest

'Normal'

'Hairy'

Now, I'm no taxonomist - but can we really consider this to be the same species, without even so much as varietal status?

[jonathan]

Wow! Did you do any breeding with them?

[dvg]

Those are some interesting differences between the regular N. hamata and it's hairy counterpart.

And this is probably the first time most of us have had an opportunity to see a hairy hamata intermediate/upper pitcher.

Thanks for sharing.

dvg

[Dave Evans]

Jun 30, 2011 9:50:21 GMT -10 osmosis said:

Now, I'm no taxonomist - but can we really consider this to be the same species, without even so much as varietal status?

They are different varieties, they just haven't been named yet.

So who still wants to combine this species into N. tentaculata?

I would avoid crossing btween these two--they aren't the same variety and might not be the same species...

This main issue is, we don't know what these populations look like, they haven't been mapped, or even well studied. How many hamata-like plants are there? On how many mountains?

[leilani]

Fantastic David!

I thought I had gotten my "plant envy" problem under control over these last few years but your hamata have knocked me off the wagon big time.

I lost both my edwardsiana and my hairy hamata at the same time while they were both still very young. I think I was actually more disappointed at losing the hamata than the edwardsiana.

Really, really nice osmosis! Congratulations!

---

leilani ..... "We've got to get one!"
unclemasa ..... "We've got too many now. We need money coming in and not going out." "You've got thousands of plants out there now and you don't need every new plant that comes along just because you think it's "special"".
leilani ..... "We are getting one!"
unclemasa ....

[rsivertsen]

We really need to see other individual plants of this "hairy hamata" before making any generalizations about them, this individual plant may be a sport, or have some genetic contamination; it is lacking the tentacles on the lid as N. tentaculata and N. hamata has, and its pitcher makes me think of N. glabrata for some reason, particularly, the uppers. Very fine plant though! - Rich

[agustinfranco]

Jul 1, 2011 2:26:15 GMT -10 rsivertsen said:

We really need to see other individual plants of this "hairy hamata" before making any generalizations about them, this individual plant may be a sport, or have some genetic contamination; it is lacking the tentacles on the lid as N. tentaculata and N. hamata has, and its pitcher makes me think of N. glabrata for some reason, particularly, the uppers. Very fine plant though! - Rich

Hi Rich:

I don't particularly believe it's a hybrid, as it has conserved most of the hamata traits for it to be a first cross hybrid. If anything, i'd be it's a hamata-like species. Now if you are thinking it to be a complex hybrid, that's a different issue; however, I think we should not speculate until we find the hairy species involved in your hypothesis, because a hamata X glabrata will not produce a hairy hamata anyway.

Gus

[osmosis]

Thanks for all the comments - it's nice to see others enjoy the plant as much as I have

We really need to see other individual plants of this "hairy hamata" before making any generalizations about them

I have two other seed grown individuals, which show subtle variability in shape and coloration, but are entirely consistent with the largest specimen, in their lowers at least. I will post a few photos. Others have also commented elsewhere that their plants are not dissimilar to this one.
In other words, I think it unlikely this is a unique sport, though since AFAIK there has only ever been one collection, it is possible that all plants in cultivation are atypical of wild populations in general. Now I think of it, though, I seem to remember also that some plants sent out to other people in the early days were quite different. I'll have to dig through some emails .

They are different varieties, they just haven't been named yet.
This main issue is, we don't know what these populations look like, they haven't been mapped, or even well studied. How many hamata-like plants are there? On how many mountains?

I think you hit the nail on the head. AFAIK Rob has never revealed the locations for this or his more recent other seed grown hamata release. I am also not aware of any photos of mature individuals from the latter collection. In a few years it will be interesting to compare these, and the plants from Gunung Katopasa released by Andreas

Even so, is it strictly correct that even if A and B are different that they cannot be taxomimically described until it can be shown they are geographically isolated with no intergrades?

I would avoid crossing btween these two--they aren't the same variety and might not be the same species...

I will always breed true species if given the opportunity, however, horticulturally the prospect of line breeding a plant with the hairy characteristic but the vigor and teeth of the G. Lumut clone is very enticing. I have not yet made such a cross, but I think I may next year if they flower again.

[rsivertsen]

Hey Gus, I'm not saying that this is a simple first generation F1 hybrid, but that this population may have some gene pool contamination from perhaps N. glabrata. Gene pool contamination does occur in this genus as can be seen in the Genting Highlands where N. ramispina, N. sanguinea and N. macfarlanei all grow together in the same general area, and some plants will show obvious traits of one or both of the other species. Some Sarracenia populations have the same problem, some sites are just complex hybrid swarms.

We don't really know if the "hairyness" trait would be lost either, since we don't yet fully understand the genetics of this genus.

This is another example of why I regard N. macrophylla as an ancient hybrid swarm between N. lowii and N. villosa; it's leaves are nearly identical to N. villosa and the pitchers are obviously N. lowii influenced; despite the fact that N. villosa does not exist in G. Trus Madi, or anywhere near it today. There are other botanical examples of how some plants have gone extinct in recent years in some places leaving behind a few hybrids, mostly sterile ones. Sedums are a prime example of this in this country, where several mountains have lost a few species presumably due to "Global Warming" on their summits. - Rich

[Dave Evans]

osmosis said:

Even so, is it strictly correct that even if A and B are different that they cannot be taxonomic described until it can be shown they are geographically isolated with no intergrades?

No, but if you don't have good information, your publication may be just be superfluous, or at worst confusing.

I will always breed true species if given the opportunity, however, horticulturally the prospect of line breeding a plant with the hairy characteristic but the vigor and teeth of the G. Lumut clone is very enticing. I have not yet made such a cross, but I think I may next year if they flower again.

Right, I'm not so concerned about making the cross, but do labeled it/them thoroughly so any later name changes will be easy to follow. We already know they may not be the same taxon.

[Dave Evans]

If this were to involve hybrids, I don't think the hairy plants would be the hybrid progeny, but rather be the parent. The individuals in cultivation are slower and smaller than "normal" hamata.

Anyway, there isn't any indication of hybridization Yet...

[cosmo]

Woow, this has to be one of the most impressive plants I have seen for years in a forum(well, I don't have to many years surfing on forums but anyway hehe)!! Totally gorgeus plant, grown perfect! Congratulations osmosis, I hope you can show us the others you have!

Now, in my personal opinion I think this is too different from the "ordinary" hamata as to be considered the same species, not even a variety; but well only taxonomists know why they decided to say it's the same species, it deffinitely has to be very interesting to make a genomic study of this species.

[Dave Evans]

Subspecies are different, even have different ranges; it is just they have an extremely recent common ancestor.

[agustinfranco]

Jul 1, 2011 4:22:39 GMT -10 rsivertsen said:

Hey Gus, I'm not saying that this is a simple first generation F1 hybrid, but that this population may have some gene pool contamination from perhaps N. glabrata. Gene pool contamination does occur in this genus as can be seen in the Genting Highlands where N. ramispina, N. sanguinea and N. macfarlanei all grow together in the same general area, and some plants will show obvious traits of one or both of the other species. Some Sarracenia populations have the same problem, some sites are just complex hybrid swarms.

We don't really know if the "hairyness" trait would be lost either, since we don't yet fully understand the genetics of this genus.

This is another example of why I regard N. macrophylla as an ancient hybrid swarm between N. lowii and N. villosa; it's leaves are nearly identical to N. villosa and the pitchers are obviously N. lowii influenced; despite the fact that N. villosa does not exist in G. Trus Madi, or anywhere near it today. There are other botanical examples of how some plants have gone extinct in recent years in some places leaving behind a few hybrids, mostly sterile ones. Sedums are a prime example of this in this country, where several mountains have lost a few species presumably due to "Global Warming" on their summits. - Rich

Hi Rich:

Thanks for your reply. I think we are seeing the same thing, but you call it differently. What is "gene contamination" for you I call
it "speciation". Using the macrophylla case, perhaps it came from Lowii X villosa, but villosa is no longer around in Mt Trusmadi, then
one will have to call "macrophylla"a species then as it has replaced a species which presumptively inhabitely the same area
hundreds or thousands years before.

Gus

[vraev]

Fantastic Dave. Just magnificent. I am no taxonomist, but is it possible that this hairy variant may represent the old parent species that may have preceded the type hamata? I mean doesn't the type display some tentaculata traits? Can it be possible that this hairy variant without any or minimal hairs on the lid may possibly be the older species which has been outcompeted by the now considered "type" N. hamata that is a result of selection.