User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 23

Thread: Is hamata tentaculata?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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.c...4914450&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
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  2. #2
    Always a newbie glider14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    3,956
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Everything is explainable. The seemingly unexplainable is but a result of our insufficient knowledge.- Hans Brewer

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  4. #4
    Corn is no place for a mighty warrior Nitecrawler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    213
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I bet these plant genera get overlooked though for taxa revision.

  5. #5
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is why I would like very much to know why we don't use subspecies status in Nepenthes taxonomy.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Because the 3 taxonomists that work on neps feel like being stubborn.
    Well thats my theory anyway...
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  7. #7
    Doing it wrong until I do it right. xvart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Zone 8
    Posts
    5,594
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "The tragedy of life is not that every man loses; but that he almost wins."

    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  8. #8
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •