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? Part II

Ant

Your one and only pest!
I moved all these posts from this thread. There was some discussion of this topic a while back, which can be found here. Otherwise, let's get to the bottom of this! -xvart.


um, I don't know what tentaculata looks like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N. tentaculata is part of the hamata family, says Wikipedia.

400px-Nepenthes_tentaculata_ASR_052007_tambu.jpg
 
oh, that looks good. Its lid isn't to hairy, and it colors look good to.
 
tentaculata is a hamata with out teeth basically.

Congrats on the awsome plants SKO! dont kill em now! ;)
 
There are absolutely no morphological differences between hamata and tentaculata except the teeth, and I think the hairs on hamatas lid branch 3 times as opposed to being unbranched. All other parts, including pitcher, leaf, and even floral morphology are exactly the same. At most, one is a subspecies/geotype of the other.
 
um, I don't know what tentaculata looks like.

Exactly like N. hamata, without the teeth.

xvart.

edit: whoops, didn't see the second page of responses... Overkill!
 
At most, one is a subspecies/geotype of the other.
this is what i also stand at. but which is the original species you wonder. is hamata an extreme variation of tentaculata or tentaculata an extreme form of hamata.

Alex
 
I'd speculate hamata. It's much harder to move up a mountain than down it.
 
well, is it second closest related species toothed?
 
  • #10
For practical reasons, I don't think tentaculata and hamata should be clumped. Look at the price difference between the two... you can get a tentac for under $20 but you'd be hard pressed to find a hamata for under $80. If they were clumped, we'd probably get things like "N. tentaculata v. hamata" for $150, buy it and it ends up a normal tentac. Also, all the vendors would use hamata as their stock picture for tentaculata, which just should not happen.
 
  • #11
Uhh what "practical reasons"? Even if there were good reason (which price differential is not), even John Turnbull has stated that it is the same exact plant, save the teeth, and the hairs. I wouldn't mind having them as subspecies of each other. Then no one would use a hamata photo for a tentac, etc. Either way, no one would do that. They would just keep a price differential on hamata and claim it as the "toothed variety" or something. Raff is all the same spp, but people will pay tons of money for special forms.

I don't know why hamata is so expensive anyway. It's nice, but it ain't that nice. Also, there are multiple clones from at least 3 locations in TC, and some seed grown ones. Not like it's rare in situ.....
 
  • #12
I'd speculate hamata. It's much harder to move up a mountain than down it.



I agree after truly thinking it out yes for them i'd agree due to their acclimating esspecially after growing from seed in much more intermediate to warm highland conditions to now lowland to cool intermediate conditions but am curious about a couple unsure due to mix up which I'm starting to think that they're a couple of the highland species I got to sprout from seed but have to get them through the summer and a couple more years and maybe find a cooler area for them.

R
 
  • #13
Even if there were good reason (which price differential is not), even John Turnbull has stated that it is the same exact plant, save the teeth, and the hairs. I wouldn't mind having them as subspecies of each other. Then no one would use a hamata photo for a tentac, etc. Either way, no one would do that. They would just keep a price differential on hamata and claim it as the "toothed variety" or something. Raff is all the same spp, but people will pay tons of money for special forms.

I don't know why hamata is so expensive anyway. It's nice, but it ain't that nice. Also, there are multiple clones from at least 3 locations in TC, and some seed grown ones. Not like it's rare in situ.....




I have to agree with PK here. But the reason why it's more exspensive is probably because of the teeth and that they want to make them believe that it's rare and exotic, IMO anyways. This is probably getting a bit off topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
im gonna go off the board and disagree. Just on the sheer virtue of the teeth. How, why, would a plant de-evolve one of the most complex pitchers in the genus? The whole pitcher structure of hamata is so much more comlex (hairy, more colorful, and bigger i think) too. Why would it loose something it had to work so hard for? I think tentactulata came first, slowly moving UP the moutain and gaining teeth as it went.
 
  • #15
I think tentactulata came first, slowly moving UP the moutain and gaining teeth as it went.

I believe that, too, because of the angle of the mountain being like this / or maybe even lower, the seeds would easily scatter down while the seeds that go the other have to slowly work their way up. So pretty much as it went up, it evovled being at a different height and location. And besides, N. hamata had to appear there somehow. But who knows which one was first? ??? Just adding some details :p.
 
  • #16
I think tentaculata is the original plant. If neps couldn't move up and down mountains then there wouldn't be any lowlanders.
 
  • #17
Just on the sheer virtue of the teeth.
Not a good enough reason to be a different taxon. Pitcher morphology makes for a crappy way to distinguish things, since they are polymorphic to a degree. Floral morphology is much more important, and they have the same exact flowers.

The whole pitcher structure of hamata is so much more comlex (hairy, more colorful, and bigger i think) too
Besides teeth and hair branching, they're the same exact plant. Color is a horrible basis to distinguish nep pitchers (or most anything, really).

How, why, would a plant de-evolve one of the most complex pitchers in the genus?
It's not that hard to lose a trait, especially if it's not necessary. Perhaps it serves a function higher up the mountain and just doesn't need it down below. Or, it coudl be a result if hybridization with a species that no longer exists.
 
  • #18
For practical reasons, I don't think tentaculata and hamata should be clumped. Look at the price difference between the two... you can get a tentac for under $20 but you'd be hard pressed to find a hamata for under $80. If they were clumped, we'd probably get things like "N. tentaculata v. hamata" for $150, buy it and it ends up a normal tentac. Also, all the vendors would use hamata as their stock picture for tentaculata, which just should not happen.

I'd have to agree. It is a bit like arguing that Nepenthes villosa and N. macrophylla are much the same -- right down to the toothy peristome . . .
 
  • #19
How much genetic change does it take for a plant to evolve such pronounced 'teeth'? How genetically different are Tentaculata and Hamata compared to the differences between other Nepenthes species? I know almost nothing about biology, but my first impression in this debate is that Tentaculata and Hamata deserve to be different species.
 
  • #20
Take a look at this, I found it in the ICPS article index:

http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/articles/CPNv16n4p115_118.pdf

I think that N. tantaculata evolved first. I mean, just take a look at the climactic conditions and changes that certain Neps went through: Madagascan Nepenthes are relatively primitive and simple, they seem like they haven't changed their morphology much from what I imagine the earliest Nepenthes ancestors, which most likely evolved in Madagascar, looked like, because they have been in relatively constant conditions over their evolutionary timespan. Same is true for most other lowlanders, that's why they all look pretty similar, and as some think, uninteresting (which I disagree with). Now, introduce a radical change to a Nepenthes population and I imagine they would evolve relatively quickly and dramatically to adapt to the relatively quickly changing conditions. Prime example: Mountain formation. With Mt. Kinabalu forming over the course of 1-3 million years, population isolation of Nepenthes would have occurred as conditions changed, and the Neps were forced to adapt. A lot of species are found on Mt. Kinabalu, quite a few of them to be found nowhere else. But they had to move up the mountain, and they evolved radically as they did. N. villosa and N. macrophylla are ultrahighlanders with spiked peristomes. It seems they evolved that trait as they moved up the mountain. When you look at it all, the highlanders have the highest species count and the greatest degrees of specialization in morphology and climate conditions. So, it seems to me, N. tentaculata evolved first, and then as it moved up, it evolved the spiked peristome, becoming N. hamata.

Jimmy
 
Back
Top