Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on May 19, 2008 10:51:43 GMT -10
Hello Michael,
...and most of these details points toward these being two separate species. However, where did you find out about the flowering set back in N. ephippiata... And this doesn't happen in N. lowii?
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on May 21, 2008 7:04:01 GMT -10
I have seen photos of N. ephippiata in bloom with an enormous inflorescence and so much so that the plant goes into a dormant decline during and even after flowering. "Dormant" in a way that the plant actually does nothing than flower or make seeds while the plant is in its sexual phase. We will soon be seeing ephippiata hybrids come onto the markets soon. It appears many have been flowering all around.
M
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 2, 2008 15:11:18 GMT -10
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 Dear Rich, Sorry, but every single N. lowii hybrid I have seen does show the "under lid spikes". BTW, these are simply pieces of the peristome used in a different fashion. Rather than invent something new, these two species, or subspecies are simply using the same DNA, but in a slightly different way. N. ephipeata doesn't equal N. lowii. Why do you think we can tell them apart with a glance? Now, I can't say the same thing about N. eymae vs. N. maxima, these two are clearly closer relatives to each other than N. e. is to N. l..
|
|
|
Post by sdcarnivores on Aug 18, 2008 13:41:21 GMT -10
I believe these two are significantly different enough to be considered dif species. The foliage is far different in mature plants. Ephippiata leaves are wider than lowii and of a different shape, and even dif texture. The pitchers are quite different in both uppers and lowers, with ephippiata having more robust uppers. That on top of all the other differences mentioned. I do find it annoying how often people overlook the fundamental organs of the plant, which are the roots, leaves, and stem, not the pitchers. The flowers are... not always a great way to compare, because flowers can differ quite a lot between individuals. I'd say the difference between the flower stalk of a typical ventricosa and a ventricosa K are drastically different. I have not heard of ventricosas producing flower stalks 3 feet or more in length as the ventricosa K grex can. Add to that flowers can develop differently due to environmental conditions. For the most part, the leaves, roots, and stems are the best indicators.
And a not about the lid hairs. They do indeed to be of similar substance/form to the peristome. That is especially evident in ephippiata, as the hairs look like disjointed sections of the peristome spread out under the lid. An interesting contrast to species like tentaculata which sometimes produce hairs on top of their lids that most resemble the nature of the pitcher's spur.
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 19, 2008 16:22:05 GMT -10
Well to me, the multi-cellular structures (elements) on the lids of some species, like N. hamata, actually look more like the fringes on the winges of the lower pitchers... Just an extension of the insect lures, a way to distrbute the scent of nectar into the air, me thinks.
|
|