N. sp. "Viking"

[sockhom]

Hello .


N. sp. "Viking" is an undescribed taxon found in a few islands located in Andaman Sea, in the province of Phang Nga, southern Thailand
There have been, a couple of years ago, rumors saying that Shigeo Kurata was going to describe this beautiful endemic thaï species as "Nepenthes globosa" but there is no description yet.
Other rumors said that Kurata might consider it as a mere form of the variable and widespread N. mirabilis.





N. sp. "Viking" is a variable plant in itself. Some strains develop elongated pitchers whereas other have a "boat form". Some pitchers are greenish; other are vivid red.
See how variable N. sp. "Viking might be by checking this link to a page of Neofarm nursery:
www.neofarmthailand.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=photo_view&event_id=3035


Neofarm nursery even classifies the different "Viking" plants in grades with criteria based mainly on aestheticism. Plants without "neck" being classified as "pure" and called "grade A":
www.neofarmthailand.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=574513&Ntype=6


We are all looking forward to read Kurata's work. The status of N. sp. "Viking" is far from clear.

Trent and Michelle Meeks from Sunbelle Exotics note the presence of a glandular boss under the lid on their cultivated plants:

pitcherplants.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=12&action=display&thread=5474&page=1


From what I can tell, as a humble "Nepenthes student", is that N. sp. "Viking", exception made of the pitchers, is very close to N. mirabilis. The leaves and stem, for example are very similar, if not identical.
However, this undescribed taxon also develops a rootstock system which makes it a relative to the mysterious N. thorelii, N. anamensis/smilesii and N. bokor ined (aka N. sp. Cambodia).

All of which are species from former Indochina.


François Mey.

[rainforest]

I am still very head-strong that this is its own species. NOT a form of mirabilis. It has all the qualities of being a distinct true breeding population. It has a specific locale, it has a specific habitat and I believe that N. mirabilis ALSO grows among this species. Yet they are vastly different from one another. N. "Viking" also produces a tuber, while N. mirabilis does not.
Already in breeding, this "species" behaves genetically from any other mirabilis in keeping its form and qualities. N. rowanae is ONLY found in Australia, N. globosa is ONLY found in their secret location and no where else!
N. hispida and hirsuta are dead-ringers for one another, and I believe it is just based on fuzz for the differences. N. globosa and mirabilis is so much more different than just fuzz differences!

M

[rsivertsen]

May 1, 2008 12:30:50 GMT -10 rainforest said:

N. hispida and hirsuta are dead-ringers for one another, and I believe it is just based on fuzz for the differences.

M

I thought so too until I grew both plant side by side, and then the differences became obvious. Personally, I find N. hispida a little more attractive.

- Rich

[sockhom]

Hello .

How about "N. mirabilis ssp. globosa"?
I understand the subspecific rank would have to be used for N. mirabilis var. echinostoma and even N. rowan(i)ae and N. tenax (and for other species "complex" as well).

I still can't understand why Nepenthes taxonomist don't use the subspecific rank.
I have discussed this with Dr Joachim Nerz a few months ago but he did'nt replied clearly (or I didn't understood clearly). He explained that it was a delicate matter.


François.

[lamwn]

Hi,
I am not very well-versed in taxonomy, but just wanted to say that I too think viking is very different from mirabilis, and should be a separate species. Here are just a few casual, unsubstantiated reasons:
1. pitchers are very different. The neck and the prominent wings, just to name a few... and most mirabilis pitchers exhibit little difference between lowers and uppers. Viking shows quite large difference.
2. "preference" for uppers - nearly all mirabilis forms I know of go into vining state and produce uppers much more readily than does viking...and viking seems to flower before starting on uppers, mirabilis, hardly ever (genaralization only)
3. Hybrids - compare the hybrids of mirabilis x rafflesiana and viking x rafflesiana - the dominance of mirabilis pitcher and leaf form in the former is quite different from viking x rafflesiana, which share characteristics more evenly. I'm sure there are many more hybrids to justify this.
4.

The leaves and stem, for example are very similar, if not identical.

I'm not very sure on this, but it seems to me that (in mature plants) mirabilis petiole is more distinct, and viking petiole-leaf connection is kind of more gradual (sorry dont know the scientific terms)

just a few arguments to the species separation side , though they are probably quite weak ones.

thanks

[rainforest]

I would like to have someone show me the SIMILARITIES of mirabilis and sp. Viking. Similarities such that they can also decipher N. mirabilis from any other species.

I still cannot see even the floral characteristics as being related. Flower spacing, form and even pollen attachment to anthers are distinctly different!

M

[Dave Evans]

I believe N. "viking" is directly related to N. mirabilis, but not as a "side-shoot" of the N. mirabilis species. I strongly suspect this plant is the result of the marriage of N. mirabilis with other species. Also, I do not belive it should be considered a hybrid, but some of the plants with the longer "necks" could be hybrids back with N. mirabilis.

I had a chance to review this plant in person. It is a species in my opinion and if someone out there doesn't think so, please explain why... It should not a sub-species, especially if it was generated by combining two other species. Keep in mind, even F1 hybrids are considered at the same taxonomic rank as a species (and they should be).

[sockhom]

Hello .

Glad people are sharing thoughts.
Personally, I don't know how N. sp. "Viking" should be treated. I just wanted to start the discussion.

I never seen mature specimens myself.
The only plant I grow develops very thin paper-like leaves with fimbriate margins and pitchers with a "neck". I suspect it to be a mirabilis hybrid like those Dave mentioned.

Rainforest, could you please give further details concerning the N. mirabilis and "Viking" inflorescences?

This post from Pitcher-plant (please check the link on the french forum and the cambodian mirabilis)
pitcherplants.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6136
show some pictures of both taxa flowers and I think they look similar (unfortunately, we do not have any close up).


I will play the devil's advocate ;D...
Here are the similarities (correct me if I'm wrong):

- The leaves are the same: petiolate, fimbriate margin (on immature plants?), laminar oblong to lanceolate.
- Pitchers: the peristome structure are very similar (of course, I exclude here the echinostoma variety). Indistinct teeth. Fringed wings. Lid orbicular to ovate.
- You people tell me about the flowers...: a raceme with peduncle.




EDIT:
Look at this fantastic form of N. mirabilis Marcello Catalano found in Trang, Thaïland:
www.nepenthesofthailand.com/FotoSito/6.trang4.JPG
www.nepenthesofthailand.com/FotoSito/6.trang5.JPG
www.nepenthesofthailand.com/FotoSito/6.trang3.JPG
www.nepenthesofthailand.com/FotoSito/6.trang6.JPG

(This is the Trang page:
www.nepenthesofthailand.com/Trang.htm )

It does remings of N. sp. "Viking" doesn't it ;D?



Friendly,

François.

[Dave Evans]

Well, these "Trang bizarre" plants are not N. mirabilis.

Why is the photo of the type all pixelated? I can't see any detail... Would it be possible this photo be re-processed? Or is that the original?

I read with interest how Marcello sees a lot of similarity between N. rowanae and N. "viking". And feels they could, umm, 'come out of' N. mirabilis rather quickly. I think the plants from Australia are a different puzzle all together. N. tenax looks to me like it directly derived from N. mirabilis and could be a canidate for variety status, however I'm just mentioning this, not endorsing the idea. N. rowanae much less so. Probably several more species of Nepenthes have made it to Australia in the past. Proto-N. rowanae might have absorbed some N. mirabilis genes and became better adapted for long term survival, which could be why it is still growing there.

I think N. "viking" might have a similar history, but with a completely different species related to N. anamensis/smilesii mixing with N. mirabilis. We might have come along and discovered it before the speciation event actually completed; which might explain why there are so many intermediate examples of this plant.

[rainforest]

What is most amazing is that N. mirabilis also grows along side these suspect species (i.e. N. rowanae, N. sp. Viking, N. echinostoma, etc.). If they are just mere forms of mirabilis, why doesn't ALL of the mirabilis look the same? There are distinct differences not only in pitcher morphology but also growth and flowering seasonality, etc.
The pitchers of sp. viking are so different than any mirabilis, even from the same region. I seriously doubt that they are even related. At best, I would imagine these two species interbreeding at some point thus having the standard form of viking we are used to seeing, and the klom form being the pure species.

M

[Dave Evans]

Michael,

I what I have read, the wide spread version of N. mirabilis does not grow along side of N. mirabilis echinostoma. Considering this, if true, it ought to be at a higher rank than variety as it has it's own range. Subspecies have their own ranges with little or no overlap. Varieties and forms grow mixed together in the same generalized range.

Also, are you sure about it growing next to N. "viking"? I had read the plants growing with it were more like N. anamensis, plants with tuberous rootstocks, not the normal wide spread N. mirabilis...

[phissionkorps]

I think the "normal" mirabilis grows in the vicinity of sp. Viking, but idk about it being intermingled with populations of sp. Viking.

I grow 1 sp. Viking, and a few forms of mirabilis, some from seed (as my sp. Viking is). I can't see how they can be the same exact species either.

[Marcello Catalano]

Hi everybody!
first of all after having read your interesting points, I was surprised finding myself really really sad, as the characters of our discussion at the moment are being destroyed by bulldozers right while we speak. I saw hundreds of dead plants at the location in Trang this year, and Nong reported a couple of years ago how one of the islands with narrowleaved and mirabilisleaved plants living together was now becoming a nice tourist beach full of resorts...This year I found another island like that, where the pitcher plants live not far from the coast, in private lands, and new buildings (hotels and shops) are now maybe just 200 metres away...it won't take long to see the misterious viking island destroyed as well...They won't understand this for sure but, once again: thai people, help us to find those plants before it's too late, the damage our little community can bring to those plants is nothing when compared to the damage they will have being just ignored by everybody and then covered with cement!!!!!

Sorry, going back to us: unfortunately I never saw the viking island personally. And I never checked the roots of the other 3 vikinglike colonies I found (I'm presently growing 4 of those Trang plants though). What I can guarantee is that N. mirabilis and vikinglike plants are photocopies, when we exclude the obviously "deformed" pitcher. I want to use the word "deformed" because when I saw those two vikinglike colonies I realized how the transformation was happening right in front of my eyes, it looked like those plants themselves were not sure or aware of what they were transforming into, from their original mirabilis shape!! Something like the ways in between the man and the Hulk or the Werewolf, when all the face bones move and give that deformed, continuously altering expression!! And in all the three colonies you could see how some plants (many in some colonies, nearly none in others, like on the viking island) were still very close to N. mirabilis, while others were just like N. viking. But I'm quite sure there wasn't any real N. mirabilis there, they were just different, in one way or the other. I saw the very rare hybrids with mirabilis and the narrowleaved plants (kongkandana and kampotiana) and they have nothing to do with the vikinglike plants. These are just mirabilis transforming into something else, I still don't know why, and that's so clear when you saw them in the wild...But in a colony where they're mostly still close to mirabilis you'd say it's just a form, while on the viking island - which is the most isolated colony, I don't think that's casual - it seems the transformation is finally complete. But still, differences - a part from the pitchers - are not enough yet to say it is different from mirabilis.

You know who is the man?? Charles Clarke. Mates, if that man could help N. tenax and N. rowanae to swim out of their subspecies boggy status, he can find out what's the matter with these viking plants !!! Sorry for the australian language:)
All the vikinglike plants, anyway, come from the same area, in the south west of Thailand, not too far one from the others. And I think they share a common destiny with the narrowleaved species (a matter suggested by my dear friend Trent Meeks): their distribution and evolution is so relatively recent that they are right on the line of differentiation...a line that is giving to us - stupid humans - a lot of problems...
Just think about madagascariensis/masoalensis, or rowanae/mirabilis/tenax...these extremes distributions dwellers are just now differentiating...then here we come, with our labelling mania:))) Ok, I know, if they were considered new species, it's because they are different enough, and let's see if we can do that with vikings, I see the point...

Considering the bulldozers, I don't think these plants will have any time to differentiate further more anyway ((
Wanna help? please label your plants adding the name of the location of origin !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Trang plants will be soon in cultivation everywhere, but how can that help if no one writes "Trang" on the label? What happens if they are just stupidly labelled "viking"? You understand now, after reading all the messages in this topic, how that's the worse danger ever...
Marcello

[sockhom]

Aug 3, 2008 11:56:52 GMT -10 Marcello Catalano said:

those plants themselves were not sure or aware of what they were transforming into, from their original mirabilis shape!! Something like the ways in between the man and the Hulk or the Werewolf, when all the face bones move and give that deformed, continuously altering expression!!

;D ;D ;D

You gotta love that quote ;D!

Welcome here Cello! Man, I think I really missed you, your mails and messages, these last months.

I wish everything in your present message was so entertaining...


François.

[Marcello Catalano]

ok, let me see if that works mate...here is my little indochinese collection: sodium lamp and 40 percent humidity...peat/perlite 50:50 and osmocote...enjoy



And by the way, being so multimedially inspired I uploaded a couple of funny videos of crazy people looking for neps on youtube





it's never easy, my friends, it's never easy

Marcello