N. tentaculata is part of the hamata family, says Wikipedia.
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!
"It's easy to rip on cops, when you aren't the one needing saving"
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.
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.At most, one is a subspecies/geotype of the other.
Everything is explainable. The seemingly unexplainable is but a result of our insufficient knowledge.- Hans Brewer
I'd speculate hamata. It's much harder to move up a mountain than down it.
well, is it second closest related species toothed?
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.
Insanity is a sane response to an insane world.