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!

Is hamata tentaculata?

Hi all,

Don't know if everyone here attends the ICPS forum, but if not, there has been a very interesting discussion about the taxonomy of tentaculata and hamata. I invite whoever is interested to see this thread:

http://icps.proboards105.com/index.cgi?board=nepenthes&action=display&thread=1184914450&page=1

Dave Evans's posts on the second page are a conversation he and I had been having via PMs, so my apologies, as it is a bit hard to tell who is writing what. Really, you have to just look at the beginning of the posts to see if they start with "Hi Dave" or "Hi Ron" to figure out who wrote what.

For a bit of clarification, when I was mentioning the lid hairs on the two species, they both do possess lid hairs, but it is my understanding that the hairs of hamata are a little different. Dave did mention in one of his PMs (I think) that the lid hairs of hamata branch out to 3 different ends.

Anway....enjoy
 
very interesting....but how did i show up on one of the PMs? :p hahah. right now(the more and more i think about it) the 2 species in question are incredibly similar. wasnt it thought at one time that N. hamata was related to Maxima and Fusca? i wonder how many current species can be lumped into each other. thanks for posting :)
Alex
 
i wonder how many current species can be lumped into each other
You could probably reduce the amount of "species" by about half. We probably should have about 20 more species than we really do though. Maxima and alata need to be split bad. And with all the confusion with "forms" of mirabilis....
From the end, Dave and I started to talk about the Indochinese Nepenthes, which, if you want to see a complete abomination and mess, look at their taxonomy. Often I think people arbitrarily renamed things and arbitrarily placed them where they don't belong. Thats another story though.
 
I bet these plant genera get overlooked though for taxa revision.
 
This is why I would like very much to know why we don't use subspecies status in Nepenthes taxonomy.
 
Because the 3 taxonomists that work on neps feel like being stubborn.
Well thats my theory anyway...
 
I certainly agree about the subspecies comments. It's been a while for me and genetics, so bear with me.

So is the question whether N. hamata actually N. tentaculata or N. tentaculata actually N. hamata? Is the reason that the debate is that hamata is a genotype of tentaculata because of the hairs and the toothy peristome? Couldn't it be possible that tentaculata is a genotype of hamata because it lost the hairy lid and the toothy peristome?

(after writing this I can't remember where I was going in response to the N. hamata and N. tentaculata discussion but it still relates to taxonomy. I'm sure after getting some responses I'll remember my original intention. Probably because if hamata was originally tentaulata but is now a variety, possibly by some hybridization way back when, it could be on it's way to it's own species.

Could a naturally occurring, established hybrid eventually evolve into it's own species? What I mean is, a long time ago species A and species B had similar habitats and the pollinators were able to create naturally occurring hybrids (A x B). Depending on the range, distance, and pollinator success rates one possibility could be A, B, and a few A x B.

Depending on how widespread the A x B seeds are and how successful they are growing the yield would be a different amount of hybrid plants in the wild. If there were only a few hybrids (because of random pollinator or a very hardy insect that traveled a long distance) there would be few hybrids that would get reintroduced into the mother plant's population and "washed out" over a few generations of breeding with the mother plant.

If, based on closer proximity or higher cross-breeding pollination there could be an established grouping of the A x B hybrids that further establish themselves in a certain location, maybe crossing with A or B but washing those traits out as in the previous example.

I would assume that the first few generations of A x B would yield the population of (I know these percentages are not correct, but for simplicities sake) 25% looking mostly like the mother, 25% looking mostly like the father, and 50% with features of both. Over generations of the A x B breeding with other A x B the outlying A' x B and A x B' (the prime (') being the 25% grouping of looking mostly like one parent) would become washed out while the mixed A x B would become further defined and muttled in the parent features.

And, as it evolved as species over years it may have other changes that are slowly introduced by mother nature to better survive, further defining it from the parents.

As that relates to the varieties of maxima out there I would suppose that eventually the varietal forms of maxima, after breeding amongst themselves for a while might then warrant a separate species clarification since the varieties would further define themselves from whatever made the separation between the varieties themselves (whether it's environmental, cross breeding, location, etc.). Of course it is actually maxima breeding with maxima then I suppose the genetics would remain similar enough to the other forms.

That post is kind of all over the place.

xvart.
 
Cough cough N. hurrelliana



So which came first, the N. tentaculata or the... N. hamata (ok all my jokes can't be jewels.) For the sake of argument, let's say that they are very closely related. So close, one is a subspecies of the other (did that ever happen but that one time with N. edwardsiana and N. macrophylla? ). So which is the original? Do extreme forms of plants evolve from bland ones? Or visa versa?


*head explodes
 
xvart I think you mean geotype, not genotype :D. If you mean genotype...remember that other things besides genotype influence the way a plant looks. Expressivity and penetrance are both influenced by the environment, and phenotype = genotype + (expressivity)*environment + penetrance*environment. Well the last two are more like functions of the environment, but I don't know how to make that fancy "F" lol.

Could a naturally occurring, established hybrid eventually evolve into it's own species?
I'd be willing to bet that a VERY considerable number of nep species have originated this way. Some people say copelandii is another alata, some don't, but its obvious that they have hybridized over the years. Stable stands of hybrids is mostly what creates species in the genus.

Now, your example with what F1 offspring would look like what, regardless of the fact of if the numbers are right or not, is way off. I can not find any examples that lead me to believe that Nepenthes display simply autosomal dominance or recessivity. In primary hybrids, the progeny most often look like an intermediate mix of the mother and father, sometimes leaning a little more in one direction, probably do to amino acid derivative or steroidal hormones (possible terpines?) that alter gene expression. This can point only to the fact that Nepenthes display incomplete dominance or co-dominance.

And, as it evolved as species over years it may have other changes that are slowly introduced by mother nature to better survive, further defining it from the parents.
Do you realize how quick "over the years" is within the genus right now? We are currently witnessing speciation in maxima and alata, and possibly in the australasian Nepenthes (i.e. mirabilis/rowanae/tenax). Look at EPs greenhouse bred truncatas. They have gone from having a tinge of red to being almost solid deep red in 20 years. A few more generations, and its possible we will see some blacks. These might not be the same as the blacks the BE has though, which I think are a hybrid or variant. It has been mentioned by a few people that they have certain morphological differences defining them from normal truncata i.e. different "tooth" spacing and the fact that the leaf proceeds further down the tendril.

Of course it is actually maxima breeding with maxima then I suppose the genetics would remain similar enough to the other forms.
Debateable...these are really speciating before our eyes. I doubt 100 years from now they'll still all be "maxima". We'll see what happens in the near future with these, I just got some seeds today of the various Wamena forms. I also got some neoguineensis and insignis, but thats a different story.

So which is the original?
Its been hypothesized that hairy hamata and tentaculata are the originals, and the "hamata" we know (Sulawest form...looks almost identical to Sulawesi tentaculata) is really a stable hybrid. I buy it. Its entirely possible.

Do extreme forms of plants evolve from bland ones? Or visa versa?
"Extreme" forms come from "bland" ones. An extreme form has nothing to build on without something there first. Allow me to allude to dogs as an example. First they were wolves, then huskies (look like wolves) then blah blah blah dachshunds. I'd say a dachshund is a pretty extreme form compared to the starting material :D.


I can't consider hamata and tentaculata totally different species and feel like I'm being rational. It's hairs branch out to 3 endings? So what...I might have longer fingers than someone else here but that doesn't make me a different species. I can think of 3 different forms of spectabilis that look at least as different as hamata and tentaculata, but they're all the same species. I think hamata being described as something knew rather than a varietal form is probably due to fanatacism of a new species. Plus, if it was "just" tentaculata, do you think the "people in power" could sell it for $60 and up? Me neither.

Thank you bio degree for finally sort of paying off :)
 
  • #10
N. tentaculata ssp dentata (N. hamata)
N. villosa var elongata (N. edwardsiana)
:-D eh i can wonder in my mind :D

i think the genus is in DESPERATE need of the "var" and "ssp" usages.

Clint: what about N. hurrelliana? i think its a species as no hybrid of fusca x veitchii look like N. hurrelliana. it even breeds true from seed...
Alex
 
  • #11
i think its a species as no hybrid of fusca x veitchii look like N. hurrelliana

Now they don't. Who knows what they looked like 1000 or more years ago? Compare any cross to an F2 of the same cross...you'll find it looks considerably different. So far I know of no F3s , but who knows what that would look like? I think thats why there are like 40 different kuchingensis, etc.

Either way, hurrelliana = stable hybrid population. I think its safe to say its a species now, as eventually you will have to split a "species" off after many many generations of hybridization once it has become its own stable population, but hurrelliana's origins are without a doubt hybrid.
 
  • #12
Now, your example with what F1 offspring would look like what, regardless of the fact of if the numbers are right or not, is way off. I can not find any examples that lead me to believe that Nepenthes display simply autosomal dominance or recessivity. In primary hybrids, the progeny most often look like an intermediate mix of the mother and father, sometimes leaning a little more in one direction, probably do to amino acid derivative or steroidal hormones (possible terpines?) that alter gene expression.

Sure, I agree. Then that would just go to a quicker transition and establishment of a "different" species since the offspring do resemble an intermediate mix yet still possess enough of the parents to recognize them. Hybrid mixes [(A x B) x (A x B)] would then express the intermediate look of the intermediates, thus eventually muttling the unique traits of the parents. I guess I was just trying to (poorly) use genetics (is it mendel diagram?) as a reference point.

Do you realize how quick "over the years" is within the genus right now?

Of course. As mentioned in one of the other threads and how easy it is to wash out traits it can (and does) happen quickly. I wouldn't dispute that.

Look at EPs greenhouse bred truncatas. They have gone from having a tinge of red to being almost solid deep red in 20 years. A few more generations, and its possible we will see some blacks. These might not be the same as the blacks the BE has though, which I think are a hybrid or variant. It has been mentioned by a few people that they have certain morphological differences defining them from normal truncata i.e. different "tooth" spacing and the fact that the leaf proceeds further down the tendril.

Doesn't it matter that this is done in cultivation though? I would assume that nurseries selectively breed certain plants in attempts to enhance the color. In the wild, while still possible, would take longer than 20 years.

I think hamata being described as something knew rather than a varietal form is probably due to fanatacism of a new species.

I totally agree with the fanaticism part. I mean seriously, look at those teeth! lol.

Plus, if it was "just" tentaculata, do you think the "people in power" could sell it for $60 and up? Me neither.

I'm sure you could still charge $60 and up for a N. tentaculata var. "hairy and toothy."

Phission, as I mentioned the other night about learning German, you now want me to retake some biology/genetics courses!

xvart.
 
  • #13
Either way, hurrelliana = stable hybrid population. I think its safe to say its a species now, as eventually you will have to split a "species" off after many many generations of hybridization once it has become its own stable population, but hurrelliana's origins are without a doubt hybrid.
so if other natural hybrids like x hookeriana remain stable...they are a new species? same with another genus like Sarracenia many of the hybrids thought to be species...if they constantly bred with the same hybrid over time. would they also be a new species. like if you bred S. x wriglyana(sp?) with another clone of wriglyana and so on and so forth.

Alex
 
  • #14
I guess I was just trying to (poorly) use genetics (is it mendel diagram?) as a reference point.

Punnet square ;)

I agree about your statement regarding EP's selection. Its definitely not natural, but its certainly working: well and quickly. In the wild it would definitely take a lot longer, but at least we know its possible (via the blacks).

Like I said, better take advantage of that tuition deal you were talking about. Genetics is a hard, hard freaking class though, as is cell bio. My fav class ever was Evolution and Classification of Plants. I have like 2 classes left...but 1 is about bugs and ones about mammals haha
 
  • #15
so if other natural hybrids like x hookeriana remain stable...they are a new species? same with another genus like Sarracenia many of the hybrids thought to be species...if they constantly bred with the same hybrid over time. would they also be a new species. like if you bred S. x wriglyana(sp?) with another clone of wriglyana and so on and so forth.

Alex

More or less...eventually.
When the time comes, you should pursue a bio degree :D
 
  • #16
Punnet square ;)

Yes! Now you can really tell how long it's been since I've had any semblance of genetics. Wasn't Wendel a famous geneticist?

I agree about your statement regarding EP's selection. Its definitely not natural, but its certainly working: well and quickly. In the wild it would definitely take a lot longer, but at least we know its possible (via the blacks).

Yes. The breeding programs do speed things up a lot, and stablize the hybrids very quickly. With a little bit of time and resources we could probably create a species just by growing some hybrids, then breeding those hybrids, then breeding those hybrids, etc. etc. And along they way I bet we would come across some truly unique plants that we might be able to selectively breed our stock to try and produce more that looked similar to it.

Its been hypothesized that hairy hamata and tentaculata are the originals, and the "hamata" we know (Sulawest form...looks almost identical to Sulawesi tentaculata) is really a stable hybrid. I buy it. Its entirely possible.

I'm not sure I understand this; both hairy hamata and tentaculata are the originals? How can there be two originals? Wasn't the question whether one was a variation of the other? Or are they both variations of some other species?

It makes me laugh that if the hairy, toothy hamata was the original and the non hairy, non toothy tentaculata was a variation of that plant (plausible) I doubt that that variation would be sought after in such fanaticism as the hamata. I mean, in that case, the variation is a less "exciting" version of the original, when often times the variations are more highly sought after.

xvart.
 
  • #17
Yes, it is hypothesized that tentaculata and hairy hamata are the originals. I buy the hypothesis as having some validity (could be), but my personal thoughts lie elsewhere. I subscribe to the thought that hamata = tentaculata and hairy hamata is a variant of hamata (the newest one). Only time will tell I guess. Some people put tentaculatas range above ene that of hamata, so if in a few generations we see an explosion in the number of hamata, I guess that will answer the question.

Wasn't Wendel a famous geneticist?
You mean Mendel lol? Yeah, he crossed a bunch of pea plants blah blah you know the story. If i was a monk in Austria in the 1800s...i would be wayyyy too busy drinking beer to worry about genetics.
 
  • #18
When the time comes, you should pursue a bio degree

eh...i plan on doing that or getting in the medical field. i have till november to decide(have to choose my college im attending by then :)) or maby i have to do that next year....hmmmmmm.

Alex
 
  • #19
Why not do them both? I am. I have like 2 more classes to take before I have my degree (in December!!!!). I'm majoring in "biology with specialization in ecology and environmental biology". Next August I go to med school, where I will either get an MD or MD/PhD. Pretty sure NO ONE can mess with you if you have an MD/PhD :D
 
  • #20
Yes, it is hypothesized that tentaculata and hairy hamata are the originals. I buy the hypothesis as having some validity (could be), but my personal thoughts lie elsewhere.

Gotcha. I was confused because I thought the previous statement was coming from your personal thoughts on the subject. It's nice when people can present valid information and still have their own differing thoughts.

You mean Mendel lol? Yeah, he crossed a bunch of pea plants blah blah you know the story.

lol. How did that "M" turn upside down in my post? Mmmmm... pea plants. Actually, I heard (nothing to back this up) that the wheat genome is far more complicated and massive than the human genome because the plant has been around forever and has stood the test of time and weathered ice ages and all sorts of stuff. But, that is probably a discussion that warrants some actual research and thought on my part instead of just a reference to a conversation back in college during "monk-like" behavior!

xvart.
 
Back
Top