Post by rsivertsen on Aug 25, 2009 8:37:49 GMT -10
The problem I have with "N. viking" is that there is no known habitat location on file so that others can observe this population of plants in-situ and confirm that this is a population of similar plants; as it is now, we have NO idea if these plants are the result of a few sports that came up from a batch of seedlings, or some hybrid, and we're not really sure if they do in fact occur in the wild!
The whole point of filing an herbarium specimen and naming the species is to provide others a means by which they can identify plants of a population in the wild; otherwise, they should be just regarded as registered cultivars, and NOT a true species. - Rich
I'm not suffering from insanity! I'm rather enjoying it, actually!
Your assessment that your plant was a hybrid clearly shows that N. Viking is different from mirabilis in many ways.
Well, I think that it must have been mirabilis x "Viking" because of the pitcher shape (presence of a "neck"). The leaves were identical to mirabilis. I shouldn't have asserted this. It was just a surmise I made at the time.
N. mirabilis inflorescences are very long, multi flowered spikes where as N. Viking is smaller, somewhat filled to a denser degree and coloration and tepal is also different from mirabils. Hybrids between the Viking and mirabilis shows a hybrid inflorescence different from the two.
Well, I'll try to get more infos about those inflorescences.
Rich, I agree with you. All we know about "Viking" in the wild are those infos about an undisclosed island where those plants are supposed to grow (along with another species, nicknamed "giant thorelii").
Last Edit: Aug 25, 2009 22:35:17 GMT -10 by sockhom
"When I am king you will be first against the wall..."