N. lowii and N. ephippiata

[sockhom]

May 1, 2008 4:40:02 GMT -10 rsivertsen said:

I have one [ephippiata]that looks just like this, spikes and all! Seems to me that this is a geotype of N. lowii, but that's just my opinion. ;D

Well, Rich. You can open that can of worms here



François.

[rsivertsen]

Ha ha! Thanks François!

OK, seriously, let's get some pics posted to show the similarities/differences between N. lowii and N. ephippiata, and see where this thread goes!

I, for one, believe that N. ephippeata is just a geotype form, withing the acceptable range of genetic drift of N. lowii. I cite the under-lid spikes as proof, since several N. lowii hybrids seem to lose them, indicating that this feature is a recessive trait. Anyone care to differ? Bring it on! ;D

[sockhom]

You're welcome Rich .


I do not have mature plants but this is a beginning:

- N. lowii (Wistuba):





- N. ephippiata (BE):




François.

[phissionkorps]

I cite the under-lid spikes as proof, since several N. lowii hybrids seem to lose them, indicating that this feature is a recessive trait.

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.

[rsivertsen]

Heh heh, Phission,

ALL those traits that you mentioned are easily attributable to genetic drift of a species; just look at all the various forms of N. mirabilis, N. raff, etc. and then there's ALL the various forms of N. maxima (including N. emeyi/N. infundib., some resembling N. veitchii and N. hurrilliana) in Sulawesi and Paupa/New Guinea, but I like your passion!

The woodiness of the pitcher, and similar vaulted lid, and all are just too similar. I hope we might get some pics of the flowers, as they are more botanically significant features than pitcher shape. - Rich

[phissionkorps]

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=767
You can find the description and the holotype of ephippiata here:
www.lhnn.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=list&action=display&thread=738

[rsivertsen]

Hey Phission,

Years ago, I got a bunch of seed of N. fusca from John Turnbull, harvested from a single plant. The result was a spectrum of individual plants ranging from all lime green to purple-red, from thin peristomes to wide, solid red, to stripes, and solid green, and all sorts of other differences; and that was just ONE species, from ONE plant.

It's not just the woodiness of the pitchers, the large vaulted lids, the spikes under the lids, accompanied with the "gunk" that birds feed on, allowing them to use the pitchers as a toilet, and all. What are the odds that two totally differfernt species have ALL of these unusual traits?

Over the years, I've raised thousands of seedlings, from dozens of species, and have observed how much diversity this genus is capable of producing.

Looking at all the other species in this genus, and observing the diversity of the various isolated populations, it seems pretty obvious to me that N. ephippeata and N. lowii are just separate, disjunct and isolated populations of the same thing, with some evolutionary genetic drift driving some traits one way or the other; but we are all entitled to our opinions.

- Rich

[phissionkorps]

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.

[rsivertsen]

May 1, 2008 12:40:36 GMT -10 phissionkorps said:

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.

The concept of "proof" is in the mind of the beholder, and is clearly subjective at best.

- Rich

[rainforest]

I do not believe they are even closely related. Just because of visual similarities, this alone does not make them related. Inflorescence differences exist between the two and something as florally unique among even a hybrid "drift" population would not account for such a difference in features that change little even if hybridized with it.
The fact that both have hairs under their lids may be a prime example of convergent evolution at its best. Their peristomes and lid structures are different enough to warrant separate divisions between the two. Being ventricose or with a narrow waist is not a feature that develops casually.
But a genetic check would be a nice start to see what these two are really from.

M

[phissionkorps]

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.

[rsivertsen]

Hey Phiss,

Again, your concept of "proof" is subjective, and all 11 differences that you mention are easily attributable to genetic diversity within a species that is spread out as far as this one is, over several mountains, and isolated populations. There are several other species that also manifest similar genetic differences with these traits.

You have your opinion, and I have mine. We can agree to disagree, perhaps someone else might weigh in on this.

- Rich

[Dave Evans]

May 1, 2008 9:59:06 GMT -10 phissionkorps said:

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.

Dear Ron,

When did I do that? Anyway, there isn't much evidence for your theory Rich. Sorry, but it does appear these two species use their unique physical attributes in different ways. If they used the spikes and secretions in the same way, I would consider them more a like. Where is any evidence that N. ephippiata attracts birds and other creatures like N. lowii does?

Someone once mentioned they think the way N. ephippiata is shaped would be useful for attracting bats. This is a theory, like Rich's, which must be tested out in some way.

Now, if both species are coprophiles, but attract different animals, should they really be considered as separate species? It would seem to me if they are dependent on their fertilizing animals, they could be considered as completely separate. For example: If N. ephippiata is dependent on bats and would die out if they stopped feeding it, while N. lowii didn't suffer at all since bats don't visit it often enough for their absence to matter... But I really doubt either plant has anywhere near such a specific diet and so plenty other details will also have to be reviewed to see how different and/or similar they both are.

As per Clarke, both species are wide spread and have different ranges... With N. lowii in the north and northwest of Borneo, while N. ephippiata is south and east of mountains where N. lowii is native.

I would say these two species are possible candidates for being combined into one species as subspecies, but there is a lack of data at this point. The data we do have points in both directions.

[phissionkorps]

Dave,

I thought you had made a case for them being the same species either on ICPS or in an email to me a while ago? If you didn't, I apologize, and retract my statement!

[rainforest]

A unique characteristic that separates these two is their flowering and spike production. N. ephippiata makes grand inflorescences and many times the plant almost ceases to thrive after flowering. This set back often associated with stem elongation and leaf differentiation is distinct so much so that N. lowii does not exhibit this behavior. Pitcher differentiations are also diverse. N. lowii upper pitchers tend to be very woodier in texture and lack a well-developed peristome. Other characteristics include the large reflexed vaulted lid of N. lowii compared with a large "umbrella" lid over the pitcher's opening as seen in N. ephippiata. One wants water and debris to enter and one does not.

M