What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

N. alata var. 'bifora'

Does anyone have a picture of N. alata var. 'biflora?

I received a young TC plant early this year.  It has been growing well for the last few months (took a while to settle in and put out healthy growth).

However, it is looking more like N. ventricosa or maybe N. ventrata to me and I can see very little that would suggest pure N. alata.

Any pitcures would help as I could not find anything much on Google.  I'll post some pics later.

Thanks,

Aaron.
 
Try the CP Photo finder. The leafs really looks more ventri than alata. Probably one of those mislabled x ventratas...
Greetings, Volker
PS: For added convenience here the direct links (still young plant though):
biflora1  
and  Biflora2
 
Thanks Volker,

However..... that IS my plant!

By that I mean, those are the photos from the Australian supplier (Triffid Park) of my supposed N. alata ‘Biflora’!!! Which I now belive to be nothing more than the commonly available red form of Vent!

I did a bit more research and found a post by Tony P (comparing Alata Vs Ventricosa Vs Ventrata) where he mentioned that N. alata has a clear petiole on each leaf and on Vents the leaf blade runs right in to the stem.

In addition to that I have another friend that mentioned that true N. alata have a 'keel' under and at the back of the lid.

I have 5x pure N. alata and ALL match these 2 descriptions with petiole and keel.  I also have 6x N. ventricosa and they ALSO match this with NO petiole or keel.

The plant in question (as you linked to above) is VERY clearly ventricosa as there is absolutely no sign of the keel and the leaf blades run right to the stem.  In all aspects it is identical to my pure Vents!

Here’s some pics that took to show.  They are a bit rushed so please excuse the quality:

This is one of my pure alata.  Note the clear petiole and keel
Alata.jpg


This is one of my pure Ventricosa.  Note the ABSENSE of petiole and keel.
Vent.jpg


And… the plant in question. AGAIN... note the ABSENSE of petiole and keel.
AlataBiflora.jpg


Note:  The pitcher on the 'supposed' Biflora does look 100% identical to what the Ventricosa was producing when it was younger.  The more bulbous appearance of the Vent pitchers, I suspect, is simply because it is a more mature plant than the Biflora.

So, unless anyone can explain to me some other way that it still may be an Alata, I must admit to being a 'bit' dissapointed.

Aaron.
 
I have one of these things from Triffid also...
Sure looks like N. ventricosa to me or a hybrid with alot of it in there. To be honest I haven't looked at the plant in a couple years since it turned out not to be N. alata.

As for N. alata var. biflora. That a was used by Macfarlane in 1908 but I have not found the description. N. alata is one flowered so I would guess he had a plant that was 2 flowered? N. coplandii is 2 flowered and N. eustachya is partially 2 flowered and might have been considered as N. alata in the early 1900's... pure speculation mind you based on the term biflora.
Tony
 
Sorry to hear you got jipped:( Very nice plants you have though!
 
Tony,

Thanks for that.  Interesting to see that you had come to the same conclusion some time ago.  As you may have picked up it was a post by you that I found with reference to the petiole.

I was getting a bit curious when I could find no other reference to Biflora anywhere on the web (suggesting it was not common) and knowing that Triffid has only very commonly available Neps.

PB,

Not sure about jibbed, but certainly disappointed

How do I put this without sounding critical?.......

I 'believe' it will be more a case of the supplier just not having the knowledge of their own plants as opposed to anything more sinister (not suggesting that is what you were suggesting!).

I'll certainly raise the issue when I next see them and give them the credit of the doubt that they are not aware either.

Aaron.
 
No,I wasn`t suggesting that.
 
Seeing your photos makes it indeed most likely a pure ventricosa.

Does anyone of the taxonomists know other one flowered Nepenthes species? I asked Dr. Jan Schlauer some time ago to ID a nep. And he said 'if it is one flowered' it is just another alata variety. This could mean that alata is at least the only philippine one flowered Nep, or is one flowered generally rare?
Volker
 
According to the descriptions in Jebb and Cheek, N. ventricosa, N. bellii and N. sibuyanensis are 1 flowered. The other Philippine species I could find were 2 flowered or the information wasn't in the description.
 
  • #10
Sorry, can someone please explain what is meant by 1 or 2 flowered?

Thanks,

Aaron.
 
  • #11
A single flower on one stalk or 2 joined together I believe.
 
  • #12
The male inflorescence is used as one of the criteria to determine species rank etc.
The partial peduncles may or may not split and hold either 1 or more flowers.

Here is N. tobaica. You can see each partial peduncle splits and holds 2 flowers each. (this is female so may not be 100% accurate but it's still close)

NFlowerfemaleCR.jpg

Tony
 
  • #13
Thanks Noah/Tony.

I thought that is what it meant but Google was not forthcoming with helpful info!

Side-note: With Spring weather well and truly hitting us this week my fingers are crossed that I get some flowers through the warmer months.

Aaron.
 
  • #14
Thanks Tony for looking it up, I guess it's time that I get my hands on a Jebb and Cheek...
 
Back
Top