|
Post by agustinfranco on Sept 21, 2010 12:14:37 GMT -10
HI Rich:
After reading several posts about the issue and growing these plants myself, i've come to the conclusion that Nepenthes are like most plants because they evolved from some sort of non-pitchered plant. Since most plants use their roots to absorb water, minerals, and any dissolved low molecular weight nutrients, then Nepenthes must do too. The fact that they developed pitchers to enhance their feeding or water catchment techniques may be a different issue altogether. There is very little doubt that these plants also feed from their pitchers, but it does not mean they can't be fed through their roots.
Bottom line: what happens when you feed a nepenthes both ways: pitchers and roots, can these plants be overfed hence plant rotting or dying. perhaps there must be a calibration on the amount of nutrients each plant requires. Exaggerating root feeding must be problem for neps, but by regular feeding either way: roots or pitchers.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jun 23, 2010 0:51:58 GMT -10
Hi Leilani:
Because of the peristome shape, colour, and keel: it must be an izumiae X truncata and not a true truncata.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on May 17, 2010 2:43:38 GMT -10
who are we to decide that a particular set of plants must have a determined set of physical characteristics?. Perhaps nature itself has allowed Nepenthes to be just a big club of cross-pollinating plants. Yeah, and if the 'brid stabilizes, we get a new species. Seems like that's what Nepenthes have been up to for quite some time. On the cultivation front, though, it would be nice if companies were selling what we thought we were getting. Hi Kain: Agree with you there too, the problem arises when it takes 5 years or more to make sure you are selling the right thing or you can't explain the characteristics of the plant you are selling, because it does not look like quite like the proposed species or a plausible hybrid. It's also the Nepenthes books authors' fault for blueprinting the looks of the species based on one or two photographs. Let me remind you all that the photographs shown in the books may only represent one or two individuals of a particular species and not the total population of the same. Hence, Breeders tend to make their crosses based on these idealized looks of any given species. Another point worth mentioning is that we tend to pass judgement on a species based on the pitcher shape, colour, lid, teeth, and to lesser extent: leaf shape. I have been told that inflorescence and other parts of the plant have far more taxonomic importance than those found the pitchers, but yet we still stick to the pitchers and regardless of what taxonomists say, we still witness a myriad of arguments on the origins of a plant based on the damn pitchers!. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on May 16, 2010 12:20:11 GMT -10
Having a "species that resemble some other species (as a hybrid) is very unacceptable. Now what do you call your N. platychila that resembles a platychila-fusca thing? M Hi Michael: I am very glad you brought it this point. The so called "N. platychila X fusca" in private collections does not exist. I have been told by an Australian Nepenthes taxonomist that when he went to visit the site the so called atypical platychilas looked very different than the real platychila X fusca found in the same area and do not resemble any of the clones sold by BE. There is no definite explanation for the atypical platychilas, perhaps introgression may explain things a bit more, but then again, who are we to decide that a particular set of plants must have a determined set of physical characteristics?. Perhaps nature itself has allowed Nepenthes to be just a big club of cross-pollinating plants. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Apr 24, 2010 19:33:40 GMT -10
Hi Vraev:
The interesting thing about the fertilizers is that even though, many growers are using fertilizers for their plants, it's also true that when you use regular compost (what most garden plants are potten in, most Nepenthes will eventually die.. This is what leads me to believe that it's not a fertilizer what kills a nep but the kind of fertilizer one uses plus the concentration and frequency at which it's administered to one's plants.
I have tried blood and bone fertilizers and fish emulsion without success.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 16, 2010 10:51:17 GMT -10
Hi all:
Thanks Walter for your quick answer. With regards to the japanes white-eyes, if these are not endemic to the Hawaiian islands, and these are usually abundant in Indochina where some Nepenthes are naturally found, then all humans have done is to transfer natural selection from Indochina to Hawaii. That is assuming that these birds are killed by Nepenthes in regions where both of these are naturally found.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 15, 2010 22:46:36 GMT -10
I am dying to open my mouth again, but before i do, i wanted to know whether the japanese white-eyes are endemic in the Hawaiian islands.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 13, 2010 23:09:09 GMT -10
Hi Sam:
it's a pleasure to hear from you too!. I do believe that Nepenthes pitcher evolution is multifactorial. I am not trying to take away any merit from Dr. Clarke's findings. Perhaps there is some truth behind the shrew poo's theory, but a Nepenthes pitcher shape and size is multifactorial and not just restricted to shrews' poo as some may want us make us believe.
Rajah's pitchers may catch some poo I am amazed and you are sure too! There is more to be discovered so be ready and don't faint as you will soon have to be recovered These plants don't stop inspiring every time i see them, i'll start transpiring there is not end to this vicious circle to get over it, there must be a miracle
Not as good as your poem Sam, but your dedication and love for these plants are inspirations to anyone.
Kind Regards,
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 13, 2010 14:12:25 GMT -10
Furthermore:
i saw the links for the short films; saddly enough, i did not manage to see any poo falling into the rajah's trap.
Gus.
P.S i believe it can happen as a shrew falling into the trap itself. No events are absolute, again they are all relative.
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 13, 2010 14:04:53 GMT -10
I posted this elsewhere, but i would like to post it here too.
Hi all:
I am not totally convinced that the shrew's faeces is the reason why N rajah, macrophylla, and lowii have large pitchers. There is no doubt, that these pitchers do feed on faeces, but faeces is not the only type of diet these plants consume. At the Nepenthes summit, Kuching 2007: Ulrika Bauer proved without doubt that the peristome of Nepenthes have a unique surface that when wet, insects slip into the pitcher.
That trait is still present in at least N. rajah and N .lowii lowers. Also it must be very uncomfortable for any tree shrew to sit on a N. macrophylla peristome...due to obvious reasons. If i am not believed, just look inside at Sam's macrophylla pitcher. There is not a single answer to this question. Perhaps, the pitchers evolved to accomodate tree shrews amongst other modifications to maximise the chances of trapping nutrients, but we must be wary of saying that tree shrews are the only factor behind N. rajah pitcher evolution.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 10, 2010 11:18:13 GMT -10
It's great to have people like Stewart constantly looking to discover new species. I wish all taxonomist had the same enthusiasm as that of Stewart. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 8, 2010 10:24:15 GMT -10
Hi Sam:
That's a beautiful South American Macau. Actually, we call them Guacamayos! and the blue and yellow ones we call them Papagayos.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 3, 2010 10:58:44 GMT -10
|
|
|
No Idea
Feb 8, 2010 6:54:35 GMT -10
Post by agustinfranco on Feb 8, 2010 6:54:35 GMT -10
Hi There: I think there is some sort of ventricosa red X macrophylla. pitcher shape, peristome, teeth suggests the above id.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Nov 15, 2008 19:52:43 GMT -10
Hi all:
Wow!. It looks like we are going back to square one again. The audacity and perhaps the arrogance of some taxonomists to call a species pure vs. hybrids is what ticks me off. We have no reliable data whatsoever of what we call a species and what's a hybrid. We have no means at this stage to determine without doubt when something is pure or not. Of course, phenotypical characteristics help a lot, but then again, how do we know that N. ephippiata is nothing more than a lowii X (species Y) and this group of plants became stable in a specific habitat. This is how species are formed due to introgression and the level of introgression determine the stability of certain species.
Pure species are nothing more that introgressed specimens from a specific cross that managed to become stable in a specific environment and the parent plants of this specific cross became extinct. thus, these group of plants can't cross with any other group of plants but themselves.
Let's try to be more realistic about what occurs in nature and we should not embrace Nazi style genetics for Nepenthes.
Gus
|
|