User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  2
Likes Likes:  17
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 56 of 123

Thread: My first potential Heliamphora cultivar, candidates?

  1. #49
    Av8tor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Clemens View Post
    Since 1984 it has been accepted as Heliamphora tatei f. parva. The name links to the data in the CP Database.

    See these reference in the CP Database. H. neblinae var. parva was initially published by Maguire in 1978, then H. tatei f. parva was published in 1987. The current 2011 publication, as H. parva, is only accepted as a synonym for the earlier published H. tatei f. parva. The names not in bold are not accepted, while the names in bold, are.

    If you have any questions as to the taxonomy of these plants, I recommend emailing Jan Schlauer, at jan@carnivorousplants.org. If he can't give you an understandable answer, no one can.

    Av8tor1, thanks for the link, and discussion. I simply take my input from Jan's database. He synthesizes all the current literature, much better than I ever could.
    tatei vs. neblinae taxonomy is a subject I am somewhat familiar with
    It may be in the database like that but I don't know about how accepted it was.
    Years ago I had a listserv thread on this very subject that stretched out for a couple months.


    Sun Jun 27 13:21:44 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] Cephalotus pollination
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    What are the defining differences between these two species?

    The more I read the more confused I get, it seems that even the "gold standard" descriptions conflict on major characteristics.
    I cant seem to find a good, consistent answer to the question. Surely I am not alone in this quest for knowledge, so can we bring it to the floor for open discussion please.

    Thanks in advance,
    Butch


    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Fernando Rivadavia fe_riva at uol.com.br
    Mon Jun 28 03:18:40 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] Florida trip reports: snorkeling with CP, and MONSTER Sarracenia psittacina
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Hey Butch,

    I had the same doubts several years back when I saw some of these
    species in the wild, so I put together 2 rough keys based on info I found in
    the literature. It's from 2004 and is thus completely outdated by now, but
    it seems like the hairyness on the pitcher exterior of H.neblinae is one of
    the big differences. Please see the keys below, I just hope they show up
    well here. If not, I can e-mail the original file to you -- although I'm
    sure others here can give you much more precise and updated info.

    Have fun,
    Fernando Rivadavia


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Key 1

    1.) A-- Anthers 16-20; lowest floral bract usually equaling or exceeding in
    height the lowest
    pedicels; plants of Territorio Federal Amazonas …………..……………………..2
    B-- Anthers 7-15; lowest floral bract usually shorter than the lowest
    pedicel in height; plants
    of Estado Bolívar ......…………....…….……………………………………….…5
    2.) A-- Upper interior portion of pitcher glabrous above the basal ring of
    hairs near water level .…. H.tatei var.tatei f.macdonaldae
    B-- Upper interior portion of pitcher densely pubescent above the basal
    ring of hairs near water level ..…….…………………3
    3.) A-- Upper pubescent zone of hairs mainly uniform, c.0.8-2mm in
    length ……………….…..………………….. H.tatei var.tatei f.tatei
    B-- Upper pubescent zone of hairs not uniform,upper half with hairs
    c.0.2-1mm long, lower half with hairs c.1-1.2mm long
    ..…….………………………………………………...4
    4.) A-- Exterior surface of pitcher +or- pubescent ..…. H.tatei var.neblinae
    f.neblinae
    B-- Exterior surface of pitcher glabrous …….…….... H.tatei var.neblinae
    f.parva
    5.) A-- Interior of the upper ventricose portion of pitcher glabrous or
    nearly so, except for the basal zone of
    hairs ………………………………..……………………………………..6
    B-- Interior of the upper ventricose portion of pitcher usually
    pubescent.…………………..……………………………………..8
    6.) A-- Appendage of the pitcher absent or scarcely
    developed …......................................................
    H.heterodoxa var.exappendiculata
    B-- Appendage of the pitcher obviously developed, 30-40mm long
    .........................................................................................................7
    7.) A-- Anthers 3-5mm long; upper ventricose portion of pitcher occupying
    1/4-1/3 of total length .…...........…………...… H.minor f.laevis
    B-- Anthers 5-8mm long; upper ventricose portion pitcher occupying 3/8-1/2
    of total length … H.heterodoxa var.heterodoxa f.glabra
    8.) A-- Some or all of the hairs in throat (excluding the basal ring of
    hairs) c.2-5mm in length, scattered or
    relatively distant from each other, or deciduous over glabrous
    surface…………………………………………………………………..9
    B-- Hairs in throat (excluding the basal ring of hairs) minute, like
    uniform velvet, c.0.5-1mm in length ………………………………10
    9.) A-- Pedicels glabrous; scapes 8-10 flowered; pitchers 40-50cm long;
    pitcher upper pubescent zone 14.5-19cm
    long, comprising 3/8 or more of whole pitcher length………………….. H.ionasii
    B-- Pedicels more or less pubescent; scapes 1-5 flowered; pitchers 2-22cm
    long; pitcher upper pubescent zone 2-3cm long, comprising 1/4-3/8 of whole
    pitcher length………………… H.minor
    10.) A-- Anthers 3-3.5mm long; upper pubescent zone 6-8.5cm long, comprising
    1/3-3/8 of whole pitcher length, with +or- uniform hairs c.0.7-1mm
    long ………………….…….. H.nutans
    B-- Anthers 5-8mm long; upper pubescent zone 7-18cm long, comprising
    3/8-1/2 of whole pitcher
    length, mostly with hairs c.0.5-0.7mm long except for lowermost portion
    where hairs are c.0.7-1mm long ..……………….H.heterodoxa

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Key 2

    1.) A-- Anthers <4.5mm long …………….………..…………..……………………..2
    B-- Anthers >4.5mm long …………….………..…………..……………………..5
    2.) A-- Pedicels pubescent .…….….............……………………………...…………..3
    B-- Pedicels glabrous ………….……………………………………….…H.nutans
    3.) A-- Anthers 15 ……………………………...…………….………….…H.ionasii
    B-- Anthers >15; leaves typically 5-15cm tall ……………………………………4
    4.) A-- Throat pubescent, ~1/3 or less of pitcher height………………...….…H.minor
    B-- Throat smooth …………………………………………..….…H.minor f.laevis
    5.) A-- Pedicels glabrous, anthers <15 (never >16), stems
    unbranched ……………..6
    B-- Pedicels pubescent, anthers >15, stems occasionally branched ……………...8
    6.) A-- Lid well-developed …….…………...………..…H.heterodoxa var.heterodoxa
    B-- Lid minimally developed ……………………………………………………..7
    7.) A-- Throat pubescent ...….…………...……….H.heterodoxa var. exappendiculata
    B-- Throat glabrous ……………..… H.heterodoxa var.exappendiculata f.glabella
    8.) A-- Throat glabrous above pubescent ring or with hairs of equal
    length ….………..………………...…………...…..9
    B-- Throat pubescent, hairs tapered in length from 0.2-1.0mm at the top to
    1-1.5 at pubescent ring……………………10
    9.) A-- Throat glabrous above pubescent ring ……… H.tatei var.tatei
    f.macdonaldae
    B-- Throat pubescent with hairs of equal length ……….…
    H.tatei var.tatei f.tyleri
    10.) A-- Pitcher exterior pubescent …………………………….… H.tatei var.neblinae
    B-- Pitcher exterior glabrous ……………………...… H.tatei var.neblinae f.parva

    --------------------------------------------------

    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    james tincher jamestincher at msn.com
    Tue Jun 29 13:16:39 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] Florida trip reports: snorkeling with CP, and MONSTER Sarracenia psittacina
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Fernando,



    Thank you for the reply, I have seen and used your keys before mate.



    IMHO the root of the problem is that those who we as hobbyist consider the experts don't even seem to agree. If you post a picture on the major forums and ask if its H. neblinae or not, it simply becomes an argument between the two major camps. At the end of the day nothing is gained. This has already occurred with the pubescent/glabrous/parva/vertical/horizontal stem/etc. etc. issue.



    IMHO, we really need the ICPS to step in and take the leadership role that only it can provide.



    James "Butch" Tincher


    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Dave Evans dpevans at rci.rutgers.edu
    Tue Jun 29 16:26:58 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] Looking for seeds of D. capillaris and D. intermedia
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Dear James,


    What are you describing? What camps? What sort of leadership from ICPS
    will help ID a plant Why don't we ask Hugo Chavez for some "leadership
    help" too?

    I think there is some issue with hybrids in cultivation, BTW...


    Thanks,
    Dave Evans

    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    james tincher jamestincher at msn.com
    Wed Jun 30 13:34:40 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] CP research
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Dave,



    I'm asking for help with H. neblinae.... Excuse me for using "two camps" instead of names. As an enthusiast of both CP books and plants I was trying to be PC.

    In Mcpherson's book he states that most neblinae in cultivation are not true neblinae, whereas Wistuba who is the source for most of the neblinae in cultivation would seem to disagree.



    Since both parties are highly respected and much more knowledgable then I, I'm asking for help. When this subject comes up on the forums it quickly becomes a pointless argument from supporters of the "two camps" with no true progress being made.



    If not the ICPS then who would be a better source to ask when the experts cannot agree?



    So I'm asking for help and not from Hugo Chavez



    James

    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Dave Evans dpevans at rci.rutgers.edu
    Wed Jun 30 15:07:44 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] tatei or neblinae
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Dear James,

    Thanks for explaining what you're talking about. McPherson is correct, but
    so is Wistuba.

    The main problem is when Wistuba collected some of his material, the names
    of the taxa were a little different. Also, Wistuba continues to find and
    name more species; not a problem but I suppose it can be a little confusing
    too. Especially when he doesn't go back and fix the information on his
    Web-site. Some of his plant labeled as "H. neblinae" do appears to be
    hybrids; not a different species. For example, his "red" H. neblinae clone
    is a hybrid.

    Also, Wistuba offers both H. neblinae and H. tatei. He has H. tatei from
    three Cerros (table mountains) and he has a couple clones of H. neblinae,
    one or two of which are hybrids. Not sure if McPherson's comments were even
    directed at Wistuba's plant offerings... Wistuba used to sell H. neblinae
    under the name "H. tatei" for several years and this might be what McPherson
    is/was talking about.

    H. meblinae used to be combined with H. tatei, but Wistuba's web-site is
    still using the old names in some cases. I have asked him several times
    over the years to read and update his own web-site as it is a bit confusing,
    but to no avail...

    All the H. neblinae and H. tatei I've seen in person looked correct, except
    for the "red tatei".


    Bye for now,
    Dave Evans

    P.S. I hope I'm not now stuck in a camp of uselessness somewhere...
    P.S.S. McPherson also indicates a third taxa from within _H. tatei_ should
    also be considered a separate species, but I'm not sure who is growing or
    making _H. macdonaldae_ available to the public, but it is from Cerro Duida
    and perhaps Wistuba is selling it also...



    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Fernando Rivadavia fe_riva at uol.com.br
    Thu Jul 1 01:54:00 EDT 2010
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Hello James,

    Taxonomy can certainly be frustrating -- especially for those of us who work
    with it, believe me!

    Often, taxonomic debates will rage for years and nothing will be agreed upon
    by all specialists. And most often names will change continuously as we
    learn more and more about the plants and as new views are introduced. This
    is all part of the learning process! ICPS nor any other plant journal
    serves as a judging board to decide taxonomic matters, I'm sorry to say.

    Although I'm far from being a Heliamphora taxonomist, myself and my good
    friend Gert Hoogenstrijd do have a unique perspective here that no one else
    has: we were together with Wistuba on Neblina in the 1998/1999 expedition
    and we were with McPherson for a 2nd expedition to Neblina in 2006. So let
    me try to give you a little bit of a historical perspective to hopefully
    clear things up a bit...

    The Neblina Massif is horseshoe-shaped and the southern "arm" forms the
    border between Brazil and Venezuela. This southern side is very mountainous
    and is where Mt.Neblina itself is located as well as other high peaks. It is
    extremely wet/ foggy (thus the name, neblina = fog) and vegetation is mostly
    low forests with lots of Bonnetia. Open patches were not too common except
    on the rocky outcrops, including the final climb to Mt.Neblina from
    2000-3000m.

    In the wet semi-open forested areas around 2000m we discovered on one side
    of a valley what was later named H.hispida. In the center of this valley was
    an open & grassy bowl-shaped boggy area where we found and amazing
    population of what we believed at the time to be H.neblinae. The plants were
    INCREDIBLY variable in pitcher shape & size (including the lid) and some
    formed very long creeping stems (and some formed short vertical stems). It
    was simply beautiful and amazing -- and absolutely crazy taxonomically! --
    with each individual clone worthy of cultivar status.

    In 2006, Gert, Stew & I visited the northern "arm" of the Neblina Massif.
    This was basically one long table-top mountain with rolling grassy hills
    surrounded by steep cliffs. This whole area was much drier than what we'd
    seen nearly 7 year before, right across the huge canyon to the south. And
    everywhere we went we saw H.neblinae. These plants were very hairy, had
    large broad lids, only occasionally formed vertical stems, and were not
    nearly as variable as the plants we'd seen previously on the southern side
    of the highlands -- although there was certainly some variability in pitcher
    color as well as shape.

    The expedition to this northern section of Neblina (where we also
    rediscovered the amazing D.meristocaulis) allowed us to observe type
    H.neblinae and conclude that this was a good species -- and not a subspecies
    or variety of H.tatei. It also led us to believe that what we'd found in the
    southern side of the mountains was not H.neblinae but most likely a hybrid
    swarm. H.hispida grew around the edges of that grassy bog and I actually
    doubt ANY of the plants there were pure H.neblinae. I don't remember any
    hairs on the exterior of the pitchers and they looked quite different from
    what I later saw in 2006. Maybe it was even a hybrid swarm of H.tatei mixed
    with H.hispida.

    So anyways, if you are cultivating one of Wistuba's H.neblinae (or H.tatei
    var.neblinae) clones from the 1998/1999 expedition, it is from this hybrid
    population and in my opinion is not H.neblinae. But, if you bought clones
    that Wistuba obtained from seed from the 2nd Neblina expedition in 2006,
    then you probably have true H.neblinae.

    Hope this helps!
    Fernando

    --------------------------------------------------

    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Andreas Fleischmann fleischmann at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
    Thu Jul 1 13:49:07 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Hello,

    Thanks for the explanations, Fernando!
    It's even a bit more complicated! I'm currently working on the taxonomy of
    Heliamphora, and thus have studied all major herbarium collections of
    Heliamphora worldwide, including the type material of all species. All
    except of the stem-forming southern species are quite easy to seperate
    taxonomically, but the Amazon species seem to form a big swarm of
    integrades...

    1. H. tatei and H. neblinae are both highly variable, especially in terms
    of general size, pitcher shape and especially the shape of the lid. This
    is even true for the type specimens! BUT: H. tatei always has a glabrous
    outer pticher surface, whereas that of H. neblinae is variably lined with
    hairs.

    2. H. neblinae is confined to the Neblina massif, consisting of the two
    peaks of Neblina, and the uplands surrounding it, as well as to the
    neighbouring Cerro Aracamuni and Cerro Avispa.

    3. H. tatei is NOT exclusively endemic to the Cerro
    Duida-Marahuaca-Huachamacari massifs, but also occurs on Neblina, at least
    on the northern part of that mountains. It seems that some part of the
    plants that Andreas Wistuba sells as H. neblinae have a strong influence
    of H. tatei.

    4. I consider H. neblinae a highly variable species, however at least two
    varieties are clearly distinguished: H. neblinae var. neblinae and H.
    neblinae var. parva. The latter is the stunted and very hairy plant with
    large circular lids pictured in Stewart McPherson's books, and which he
    calls "true H. neblinae".
    H. neblinae var. neblinae is the plant with hughe pitcher that Stewart
    pictured on Aracamuni, which he thinks should be considered a distinct
    species. But that's "typical" H. neblinae, with fan-shaped upright lid and
    -most diagnostic- a broad triangular red part free of retrorse hairs
    running down the upper third of the pitcher interior.
    In my opinion, H. neblinae var. viridis is of little taxonomic value. H.
    tyleri (from Duida) still remains doubtful for me, however it's
    differences to H. tatei seem to be little but constant. Too bad that
    nobody has studied the type populations on Duida sice...

    To summ it up, that's the reason of all the confusion: the "true" H.
    neblinae that Andreas Wistuba has (the ones from the north), are H.
    neblinae var. neblinae. (and some clones might be hybrids with H. tatei
    and H. hispida, and maybe even something different).
    The plants Stewart refers to as "true" H. neblinae (the ones from the
    south), are H. neblinae var. parva.

    All the best,

    Andreas

    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Dave Evans dpevans at rci.rutgers.edu
    Thu Jul 1 19:05:22 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Dear Andreas and Fernando,


    Thanks for the very detailed letters. It really helps people (me too)
    understand the situation better.

    Andreas, what do you think about _H. macdonaldae_ from Cerro Duida? I
    realize you didn't visit that mountain, but apparently there are several
    specimens from there you have reviewed...

    I'm very keen on learning more about _Heliamphora_ and the topography of
    their native range. However, I'm having some trouble finding any decent
    maps, or any new information besides for Stewart's books.... How are you
    fellows accessing good information from which to base your explorations?

    For example, I have some seed grown _H. heterodoxa_ from a place called
    Chivatone from 15 years ago. I still can't figure where this place is,
    besides for somewhere in the Great Savanna, apparently north of Chimanta
    Massif.


    Thanks,
    Dave E.

    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    Fernando Rivadavia fe_riva at uol.com.br
    Thu Jul 1 20:07:14 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Andreas,

    Thanks so much for your input and clarifications! I was thinking of your
    DNA work as I was writing my message. We've talked a lot about it, but I
    can't find anything in my files, so I'm guessing you haven't published it
    yet?

    > 2. H. neblinae is confined to the Neblina massif, consisting of the two
    > peaks of Neblina, and the uplands surrounding it, as well as to the
    > neighbouring Cerro Aracamuni and Cerro Avispa.

    Ha!

    > 3. H. tatei is NOT exclusively endemic to the Cerro
    > Duida-Marahuaca-Huachamacari massifs, but also occurs on Neblina, at least
    > on the northern part of that mountains. It seems that some part of the
    > plants that Andreas Wistuba sells as H. neblinae have a strong influence
    > of H. tatei.

    Are you sure you meant to write "Northern"? Wistuba was in the S part of
    Neblina, but he also obtained seeds from our 2006 expedition to the N...
    What did the DNA sequence of the H.tatei/neblinae from the 1st expedition to
    the S part of Neblina show up as?

    > 4. I consider H. neblinae a highly variable species, however at least two
    > varieties are clearly distinguished: H. neblinae var. neblinae and H.
    > neblinae var. parva. The latter is the stunted and very hairy plant with
    > large circular lids pictured in Stewart McPherson's books, and which he
    > calls "true H. neblinae".
    > H. neblinae var. neblinae is the plant with hughe pitcher that Stewart
    > pictured on Aracamuni, which he thinks should be considered a distinct
    > species. But that's "typical" H. neblinae, with fan-shaped upright lid and
    > -most diagnostic- a broad triangular red part free of retrorse hairs
    > running down the upper third of the pitcher interior.

    OK, I see I have pics of both these varieties on Neblina itself. On
    Aracamuni and Avispa, my pics show a wide variation in these characters...

    > In my opinion, H. neblinae var. viridis is of little taxonomic value. H.
    > tyleri (from Duida) still remains doubtful for me, however it's
    > differences to H. tatei seem to be little but constant. Too bad that
    > nobody has studied the type populations on Duida sice...

    The H.tatei that Stew, Gert & I found on Duida with H.macdonaldae, do you
    not consider that "type"? And like Dave, I too want to know your opinion of
    H.macdonaldae (hopefully it was included in your DNA studies?). It certainly
    looked like a good species to me on Duida!

    > To summ it up, that's the reason of all the confusion: the "true" H.
    > neblinae that Andreas Wistuba has (the ones from the north), are H.
    > neblinae var. neblinae. (and some clones might be hybrids with H. tatei
    > and H. hispida, and maybe even something different).
    > The plants Stewart refers to as "true" H. neblinae (the ones from the
    > south), are H. neblinae var. parva.

    I think you got N and S inverted here again, did you not?


    Best wishes,
    Fernando


    [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question

    james tincher jamestincher at msn.com
    Thu Jul 1 18:39:49 EDT 2010
    Previous message: [CP] H. tatei or H. neblinae? that is the question
    Next message: [CP] CP Digest, Vol 31, Issue 22
    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
    Thanks everyone for the excellent replies. I wish more would see this, maybe then it would end these turf wars that seem to crop up from time to time in the forums concerning this topic..

    I understand the difficulties in Heliamphora taxonomy. However, when the two sources we rely on most conflict. Then it does need to be opened up for discussion such as this. So the excellent views and information such as this has a chance to come to the surface for all to see.

    For most, shades of gray are perfectly fine as long as we have the information to understand the nuances behind those shades of gray.

    Fernando you have the unique perspective of being in both expeditions and seeing both populations in situ. Your first hand observations and inside information is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.



    It has helped a lot, thank you.



    James "Butch" Tincher





    So fast forward to 2011, we have the new book and McPherson, Wistuba, Fleischmann all put their names (to everyone's surprise and delight) on what many of us consider to now be the standard for the genus.
    Last edited by Av8tor1; 02-15-2015 at 07:18 PM.

  2. #50
    Aristoloingulamata Dexenthes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Southern Tongass Rainforest, Alaska
    Posts
    3,708
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, good read Butch, very insightful indeed.
    LOOKING FOR: N. (argentii x bicalcarata) x {[(lingulata x edwardsiana) x (naga x hamata)] x [(klossii x undulatifolia) x (aristolochioides x rajah)]} Growlist: http://www.terraforums.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=124586

  3. #51
    mcmcnair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,044
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Joseph Clemens, the CP database is not entirely correct in some cases and should not be treated as a 100% correct source of information when it comes to taxonomy. I have met Jan Schlauer, a brilliant man who deserves the utmost respect, especially for his efforts on the CP Database. However, it is just him that manages that site and one man cannot keep up with the onslaught of academic publications that are coming up nowadays and as a result there are sometimes mistakes in it. You are better off comparing databases such as Tropicos, iPlant, Biodiversity Heritage Library, IPNI, Hortus III, Index Kewensis, and JStor. Which is what I did to provide my response.

    So let's begin
    Heliamphora tatei var. parva Maguire 1978 and Heliamphora neblinae var. parva Maguire 1978 were published together in the Memoirs of the New York Botanic Garden 29: 59, f. 49: G–H, 50: A–C. 1978.

    In 1984, Steyermark described Heliamphora tatei var. neblinae f. parva as a stat. nov. making this a synonym of H. neblinae var. parva Maguire 1978. Oddly enough, he didn't use H. tatei var. parva Maguire 1978 as the basionym (epithet bringing name) instead choosing H. neblinae which is a completely and very distinct species from H. tatei.

    Side Note: from a hobbyist perspective Steyermark would be considered a lumper while McPherson, et al. would be considered splitters when it comes to Heliamphora.

    McPherson et al. elevate H. neblinae var. parva Maguire 1978 to species status giving it the name H. parva (Maguire) S. McPherson, A. Fleischm., Wistuba & Nerz 2011. They ignore H. tatei var. neblinae f. parva (Maguire) Steyerm. 1984 as a basionym and explain that all the authorities mentioned previously in this post agree that this plant deserves to be a distinct taxon but the level at which it should be named is questionable. Because Steyermark described it as an infraspecific forma of H. tatei, McPherson et al. decided that there were significant morphological differences that distinguish this plant from H. tatei and decided that Steyermark's work is not correct and should not be followed.

    I often find it helpful to look at the taxonomic history of a plant to determine what is the correct name. In a way there are two lineages for this taxon so I agree that this is an unresolved taxon; however, I think McPherson et al. are correct based on my personal knowledge of Heliamphora and their argument made the most sense to me when compared to Steyermark's reasoning.

    1978- H. neblinae var. parva Maguire
    1984- H. tatei var. neblinae f. parva Steyerm.

    or....

    1978- H. neblinae var. parva Maguire
    2011- H. parva S. McPherson, A. Fleischman, Wistuba & Nerz

    Which is correct is a matter of opinion at this point. I thought it might be helpful to present all the facts though to help others form their own opinion.
    NCSU's Carnivore Nut
    Original President of the CCPS & Co-Founder
    Mason M.
    My Growlist

  4. #52
    killerplantsguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    N. CA
    Posts
    489
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nicely done, Pokie. You are leaving me in the dust!

    Cheers,
    Paul

  5. #53
    hcarlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Greeley, CO, USA
    Posts
    3,573
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The easiest way to find answers online: not by asking the question, but by posting what at least someone thinks is the wrong answer!
    In all seriousness though, this has become quite taxonomically informational, but I think it's leaning a bit away from the original purpose of the thread.....
    Everything has a reason, whether big or small. Never underestimate the power of what is or is not.
    There is far more to everything than meets the eye.
    Growlist

  6. #54
    Moderator Joseph Clemens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    2,539
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hcarlton,
    Wasn't the original point, that there were some potential candidates being considered for cultivar registration. There's horticultural nomenclature involved in that. Of course, this divergence is such that cultivars only need be identified as to their genus, and the characteristics that define their cultivar status, and no species epithet is necessary.

    Av8tor1 & mcmcnair,
    Excellent dialog. I appreciate the time that's been invested to further illuminate this subject. Fortunately the majority of CP species are not as much disputed, as are a few. I do not pretend to have all the answers, as concerns CP nomenclature, just a strong interest in using it for our best advantage. I think that when we're discussing those taxon that are, "much in dispute", at least a bit of a footnote could be added, making a note of the situation. Helping all of us, who are less aware, become moreso.

    In effect, that is what happened here. Again, I want to express my great and sincerest appreciation to those who have taken the time to share their own knowledge and understanding of the situation with this taxon - including the excellent references provided. And our posterity will also be able to look back on these threads and gain a better understanding of the cultivation history of these plants.

    It's times like this that I feel, at least a little like I'm accomplishing my job as a moderator.
    Last edited by Joseph Clemens; 02-15-2015 at 09:23 PM.
    Joseph Clemens
    Tucson, Arizona, U S A

  7. #55
    IG #Carnivoregon Randoja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When the plant names get edited so much, these threads get ridiculously confusing for people new to the hobby. It's really confusing to read one thing and see that it's been edited, and then read a debate on what it's actually called from numerous sources.

  8. #56
    corky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    warwickshire,england
    Posts
    1,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree , clear as mud

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •