xvart I think you mean
geotype, not genotype
. 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
.
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