|
Post by phissionkorps on May 9, 2008 23:10:51 GMT -10
Who else is growing this species? My plant grows well and quickly (especially for its size), but hasn't made pitchers for me yet. For some reason, 3 out of the 6 or so leaves it's made since I got it have had the tendrils fry. The others haven't inflated yet.
My conds: 80-93°/65-70% day 73-76°/70-74% night. About 2 or 3 inches from 2 "cool white" T12s. Soil: fir bark, charcoal, acrillite, peat, perlite, vermicutile. I mix the last three ingredients in a 5:2:2 ratio, and it makes up about 10% of the total mix. The fir/char/acr are about 1:1:1, and make up about 90% of the mix.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 9, 2008 23:06:29 GMT -10
I am growing some insignis from seed, and I don't think all of them are pure, even though they are only about 1" across now. From what I've heard, insignis leaves should be very much like that of ventricosa, i.e. lanceolate. I've got about half of my seedlings with truncate-ish leaves. What grows with insignis? I'd like to at least speculate as to what the cause could be. IIRC, mirabilis grows with it, but mirabilis wouldn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 8, 2008 22:37:32 GMT -10
Hi there,
I've had a ventrata pitcher for me in 15% humidity, so I don't think that's a problem. Don't waste your time misting. It raises relative humidity slightly....for about 15 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 5, 2008 13:08:07 GMT -10
What is that icon supposed to be?
EDIT: ahhh I see its the same as the logo in the top left of the new skin. When it's that small, it looks like a fat guy with a top hat and a hole in him.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 4, 2008 11:06:17 GMT -10
Steve,
Where are you finding that at? Can you provide a link to where I can access these descriptions? I've always found the ICPS site a bit confusing (feel like I have to click way too many times to get to what I want).
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 2, 2008 9:31:02 GMT -10
Joel,
Thanks for the suggestions. I've got the Wistuba boschiana and it seems to be shrinking. I had sibuyanensis but traded it after a month or 2. Fusca does well for me, but I need to find burbidgeae, etc. What do you think about spathulata?
Ed, Nice plant. Still kind of looks like a hybrid to me. Maybe I'm wrong...
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 21:12:51 GMT -10
Why is the f lowercase though? I like the name, but that bothers me. Makes it look like f-LORA, and what the hell is that???
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 17:47:56 GMT -10
Ed,
It appears Adrian is correct in labeling your plant a hybrid with spectabilis. IMO, it looks to spectabilisy to be just rigidifolia.
Great plants both you and Joel though. I've always wanted to try this species, but I'm not sure how it'd do for me. I'm trying to branch out and see what HLs I can grow (since I already have about 85% of LL species...the rest I can't find). My fusca Sarawak doesn't blink at my temps. I'm trying a gymnamphora right now, and I'm heavily leaning towards a "carunculata" (or bongso, depending on who you are) to see if I can grow that.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 17:34:16 GMT -10
Rich,
No...it's not. The way I was taught is very black and white (I don't know the old school ways). You're right, or you're not. You can prove something, or you can't, and in this situation, you can't. There is no scientific proof whatsoever (that I'm aware of at least) for your claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, you just have a weak case at best (IMO). No journal would let you publish something based on personal experience, especially when hard evidence is severely if not totally lacking. Since there is no proof, we are limited to comparing the plants. Just in the pitchers, there are at least 11 differences (perhaps I've overlooked some?). Even at this point, one could say it comes down to if you are a lumper or a splitter. I'd disagree. I don't think of myself as either. Splitters will split on a single insignificant difference, and lumpers will lump no matter if there are 300000 differences, and the entire world disagrees with them. Taxonomy is subjective, proof is not.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 13:24:58 GMT -10
The BE plants are from seed. Some are the species, some are hybrids. I think it's impossible (or nearly so) to collect wild seed and not have a single hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 12:40:36 GMT -10
However, the likelihood of all that seed being from a single male parent is less than 0. Also, some of the offspring were more than likely fusca-dominant hybrids, some of the males were probably introgressed hybrids, etc, etc. I'm not arguing with there being insane diversity within a single species, but as we've seen with things like the whole platychila fiasco, wild-collected seed can be iffy.
I haven't seen everything you have, so it's not obvious to me. Again, I ask....where's the proof? As you said, we all have different opinions, but I have yet to see any proof at all to back up that they're the same. Show me something! If there isn't any, which I don't think there is, i.e. genetic studies, monitoring of populations with photographs for decades, then this convo isn't going to go anywhere. Without any presentable proof, it's just opinion. I could look at both and pick out a plethora of differences, and personally, I feel that once you get to about a dozen, the chance of them being the same species is thrown completely out the window.
AFAIK, ephippiata is not used as a "bird toilet" like lowii is...which hey, that's another difference! It is MUCH more likely they are each other's closest relatives rather than the same species.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 12:03:54 GMT -10
Rich, It'd be much easier to make a case for everything known as maxima to be split into several different species, than it would to condense ephippiata and lowii into 1 species. Are there any studies on genetic drift in Nepenthes? There are none that I'm aware of, so there is no proof for it being just genetic drift, nor is there anything to currently suggest those types of changes could all be the result of such. Also, Even if it were just genetic drift, they both have stable populations that always produce offspring that look like the parents. I.e., they are two different species. Ephippiata x ephippiata will not produce a plant that looks like lowii in all the above traits I mentioned (and like I said, that's just the pitchers). Woodiness proves nothing. Many HL species (especially the ultrahighlanders) have stiff, woody pitchers. I named 11 differences, and you named 2 similarities, one of which is getting thrown out because it is a trait shared by many taxa. If you push the idea that they are both the same species, though they are widely regarded as two separate taxa by more or less everyone, the burden of proof is on you and like-minded individuals. So far I haven't seen anything at all to suggest that they are the same. Here's lowii flowers: www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=list&action=display&thread=767You can find the description and the holotype of ephippiata here: www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=list&action=display&thread=738
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 1, 2008 9:59:06 GMT -10
That's proof for nothing. First of all, we don't know exactly how the inheritance mechanisms work in Nepenthes. Just because they don't show up in *most* lowii hybrids does not automatically mean that they are recessive. Plus, even if they were recessive and we knew it....the fact that the hairs disappear in most primary lowii hybrids has absolutely nothing to do with ephippiata being a geotype form. Try as I might, I can see no way that those two thoughts are connected whatsoever. That's like saying most apples are red, so they're a geotype of pears. As I said, this point is getting thrown out, since it proves nothing.
Just looking at Francois's pictures: The lid of ephippiata seems a bit longer. The hairs on ephippiata are much less dense. The hairs are also arranged differently between the two. The hairs on lowii end in a sharp point, like this: \/, while with ephippiata, they end like this: \| The peristome shape is different between the two. The wings of ephippiata are further apart. The frills on the ephippiata wings are longer. Lowii's pitcher is much more ventricose, while the ephippiata one is slightly globose. The hip on the lowii is much close to the tendril than the hip of ephippiata. Tendril attachment is different (maybe just a product of environment?) Ephippiata is much less hairy than lowii.
How can you say they're the same species, in spite of all of that? I haven't even looked at the leaves or stems yet!
I hope someone like ep who has grown many of both species to maturity will chime in. I've only seen one other person claim that these two species are the same (Dave Evans)...maybe he will chime in as well. Maybe you two know something no one else does....or maybe its a New Jersey thing lol.
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Apr 30, 2008 23:36:56 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Apr 30, 2008 22:56:52 GMT -10
Wow thanks for finding that. Very informative, albeit a bit dense lol.
|
|