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!

N. burkei

  • #21
BU-1 and BU-2 are clones derived from seed that was supposedly collected from Mt. Halcon in Mindoro, Philippines, tha type localle for N. burkei. I'm still undecided about this species and actually took BU-1 and BU-2 off the market until I could be more sure I wasn't peddling N. ventricosa under another name! The size of the lid and the realtive lack of ventricose characteristic to the pitcher seem inconsistent with N. ventricosa though.

Unfortunately, taxanomic data is extremely sparse. I spoke with Charles Clarke about this briefly in Tokyo and he was undecided too.

I feel one way to decide the issue would be to go to Mt. Halcon myself and check out wht grows up there. I've been meaning to go for years and have actually been within sight of the mountain on over 30 occasions since 1991, but either typhoons or scuba diving got in the way
tounge.gif
Perhaps I'll make it this year.

I do now agree Jeff that your plant is probably a less mature version of the one shown in the Exotica photo. If anyone has a mature plant of either BU-1 or BU-2, I'd love to see a photo!
 
  • #22
mad.gif
Oh and by the way. N. mirabilis var. echinostoma vs. N. mirabilis. It's all games that taxonomists play in my opinion. There are trends at times to lump species together and at other times to split them up again. At one time N. echinostoma was regarded as a separate species to N. mirabilis and then it was "reunited" with N. mirabilis because apparently they have similar flowers. One day they will very likely be split again. That way, taxonomists can write more papers in their publish or perish world. It may seem to be a cynical viewpoint, but it's the view that several taxonomists that I have spoken with (no names mentioned) have cheerfully admitted to. Another interesting statistic is that with two exceptions that I can think of, all the current taxonomists leading the field in the world of Nepenthes have hardly ever seen any plants in the wild, which is unfortunate in that they sometimes don't realize the enormous variation in form that can exist within a single species. For example, if they happen to be dealing with a pressing of an immature or atypical plant, then the description they produce becomes the standard and can be misleading.

Yep Jeff, another controversial thread but interesting
biggrin.gif
 
  • #23
This is a little off topic from N. burkei but I thought I might go well here with all of this discussion on taxonomy. I know that many biologists define two separate species as populations that cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring (either the offspring dont develop, or are still born, or they are infertile, ect.) How does this fit in with Nepenthes and other genera of carnivorous plants that can readily be interbred to produce fertile reproductively capable hybrids? Is this rule for distinguishing species not used in botany as a whole or are their special conventions for certain genera (ie. Nepenthes, Sarracenia, Heliamphora)?

Matt
 
  • #24
In the interest of adding further impetus to this discussion,
I've posted a scan of a lithograph featuring N. burkei. The
scan is admittedly rather poor; I tried to get the original print,
but was unable to do so, and was stuck with the poor quality
image instead, but that's another story....

This image comes from a periodical called Revue Horticole,
and was published around the turn of the last century (about
1900).

Nepenthes BurkeiPrint.jpg
 
  • #25
wow.gif
That's a drawing I've never seen before! I have a paper somewhere by Masters that isn't really much use and some rather poor line drawings from around the turn of the century, but that drawing above is very useful. Looks to me that Geoff Mansell's plant is very similar and it remains to be seen how BU-1 and BU-2's peristomes develop as plants mature.

Isn't it amazing how much work was done on these plants a century or more ago? Pity some of those folks aren't still around and able to post on this forum!
 
  • #26
Rob,

I had you in mind especially when I posted the lithograph
image. Thought you'd find it interesting and would have
something to say.
smile.gif
 
  • #27
mrmiller, I don't think that applies to most plants
 
  • #28
It can be argued whether N. burkei is a distict species or not, but that lithograph is pretty convincing evidence that Geoff Mansell's plant is the one that was named N. burkei.

Regards,

Joe
 
  • #29
Jeff, that lithographic image is the most interesting of all the evidence I have ever seen about this so-called species.

Yes Joe, if that lithograph is to be taken as a serious effort to artistically reproduce an actual specimen of the species, then I wouldn't argue about the veracity of Geoff Mansell's plant.

Hopefully I'll be able to tell you more after I've actually been there!

At risk of repeating myself, I do so much admire the work of the early botanists compared to the 'armchair expertise' we are subjected to today.
 
  • #30
Mr. Miller...
I asked my biology teacher (Who is actually a geneticist) about that myself. We were taught that as a rule, species couldn't interbreed to produce successful offspring. We were taught that interspecial(?) gametes never reached a the zygotic stage (due to factors such as diff number of chromosomes, mechanical configurations that might not match, etc.), and others began development, but never reached a successful reproductive state (either still births, sterility, etc.). Obviously this is untrue when looking at complex hybrids, right? We not only see complex hybrids in CPs, but in orchids, day lilies, etc. Thats what I know on the subject...
confused.gif
Right or Wrong...

What sort of geographical barriers are there between N. burkei and N. ventricosa? If they're not really within eachother's vincinity, wouldn't that merit the differentiation?
 
Back
Top