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!

Two widely variable nepenthes

Hello Nep nuts,

After looking at nearly every photo of Nepenthes sanguinea and Nepenthes alata in Bobz's photo gallery, I was left wondering; How many forms of sanguinea and alata are out there?! They vary so much, you'd think you could split all the variations into 20 new species!!
wow.gif
Why do they vary so much? What makes people think they are just variations, and not different species?
rock.gif


Examples:

Two Nepenthes alata. look at how different they look!
sam0047.jpg


S4_Nepenthes_alata_2.jpg


What keeps them as the same species?


Sanguinea varies even more. I have seen adult, pure green pitchers, and adult, pitch black pitchers
wow.gif
Size also varies too, i have seen adult sanguineas with 4 inch pitchers, and some with over 12 inch pitchers!
rock.gif


Please clear things up for me
smile.gif
 
Hey Spec, good question. Here's my take on it, which may or may not be accurate!
I don't think nep species are defined by the pitchers. The reason I think this is because, as far as I know, nep species are defined the same way other plant species are, and other plants don't have pitchers. Botanists use leaf design, flower structure, pollen structure, seed structure, and things like that to define plant species.
Therefore, if two neps share all the same characteristics listed above, they are the same species, regardless of whether their pitchers look the same.
So while you may be able to identify a species by the pitcher, you can't define a species by the pitcher.

Hopefull a real botanist will be able to put this a little better than I have (if, in fact, I'm right, that is).
smile.gif
 
Hi Spectabilis and Everyone,
Coloration is not a critical factor in describing a species. Taxonomists have a set of criteria that are used when describing a species. Such details as the tooth under the lid in N. alata, leaf attachment, leaf and pitcher structure, glandular distribution and many other details are more useful. Some individual plants and colonies in nature will show distinctions, but still may have all the characteristics needed to fit the archetype.
Rafflesiana also displays variations that have horticulturists giving them varietal names, like the pure "white" form called 'nivea' or the nearly solid brownish purple form called 'nigropurpurea'. I don't think these names are scientifically valid, but the form 'elongata' is valid, as whole colonies of an elongated raff exists in nature- and they too exhibit the same color variations as a 'standard' example of the species.
Hopefully this has been helpful...?...

Trent
 
im not to familiar with plant taxonimy but maybe i can use a different analogy with a group that im more familiar with that will show the same thing. go to www.kingsnake.com look under the classifieds for ball pythons. you can take 2 ball pythons, one pure white(called a "snow ball") and one normal, if there is such a thing as a normal colored ball python, most people not familiar with snakes would call them different species based on color alone but any one familiar with snakes will almost instantly know its a ball python even though the colors and patterns of both snakes is COMPLETLY different. this is much the same as comparing Nepenthes like Rafflesiana's with its large number of varieties, they may appear different but a trained eye will tell you they are all the same species. this help?

Rattler
 
Yes, that did help... But I'm still not satisfied
tounge.gif


This would again bring into question Burkei being the same species as ventricosa... Leaf shape, flowers, everything, are the same, 'cept the pitchers, which are green- speckled red... For all we know ventricosa could be an albino form of burkei!
tounge.gif


rattler_mt,

I have never heard of an albino snake called "snowball". Yet, I have heard the term, bannana
tounge.gif
(seriously, a zoo called albino snakes bannana snakes
wow.gif
) Usually they just say, "Amelanistic"
smile.gif
 
Amelanistic what most think of as albino is lack of black pigment.
snowballs are what you get when you cross a ball python lacking yellow(axanthic) and one lacking black(amelanistic) which leaves a pure white ball python. simple genetics.

Rattler
 
Snow snakes , like corns, balls and pine snakes, I think, can be pretty cool looking, as they don't have the pink eyes that turn people off from albinos. I understand what rattler is saying as you could color a ball python any color and I know enough about snakes to glance and say, "Hey a ball python."
The alata forms look a little different than just pitcher color. Compare the one called "boschiana mimic" with it's bulbous base to others. Is the Palawan Island form the one that was changed to N. philppinesis?
When Mr. Phill Mann had more time for email, I was emailing him about mirabilis echinostoma and was remarking on how that could not be a different species with that peristome. But if all the other parts are a match, I guess a larger peristome does not do it. His comment was that it was the alata complex that really needed more work.

Regards,

Joe
 
No question more taxonomic study needs to be done. alata 'boschiana mimic' displays all the features used to describe an alata, the bulbous lower part negates nothing in the taxonomic description. The 'Boschiana mimic" part of the name is purely horticultural-it does not look anything like boschiana to me-I don't know what it's supposed to be mimicking! Right now we have a bunch of the Sibuyan Island alata-seed raised, and they have a distinctive look. I don't know if it would qualify as a new species: I'm beginning to think every island in the Phillippines has its own form of alata!
As for burkei and ventricosa: I believe there are vascular differences in the leaves and stems that keep them seperate.

Trent
 
personally i believe all this stuff falls into us trying to interprit what nature is doing. short of large scale genetic testing i believe alot of this stuff will be debated over for the rest of our lives. i realize that the color morphs of ball pythons i brought up was probably way over simplified compared to the pitcher structure of Nepenthes. but it was a nice try

Rattler

Rattler
 
  • #10
Actually, rattler, it was a valid comparison. I agree with you about describing nature. Naming organisms is a part of describing nature, and nature doesn't always fit into nice neat little cubby holes. But, it is the best way we humans can communicate.

Trent
 
  • #11
Thanks for your imput, all! I was also hoping for some imput from Rob and Tony and Chien though...
sad.gif
 
  • #12
There have been lots of good responses already and I am far from a qualified taxonomist.

Taxonomists use a variety of features to determine relationships between different populations of plants. The issue is what features do they use and at what point do you decide a plant is different enough from the type specimen to call it something else. A number of Nepenthes features are fairly stable, such as the gland under the lid. The highest priority is placed on the features which show the greatest stability across the population. These particular features may not be something we would recognize quickly such as gland structure, density and placement in the pitcher. Taxonomists also don't always agree on which features are best to use and at which point different plants should be considered different species.. hence the periodic revisions! If you want to know more just read an entry in one of Charles Clarkes Nepenthes books and you will see the latin description detailing the many aspects of each plant species, which is carefully documented for comparison.

My hats off to the taxonomists with the incredible tedious and time consuming work trying to study dozens of different details in an effort to define and extrapolate the relationship between all the plants and animals out there.
T
 
  • #13
I wasn't going to say anything either because I'm an electronics engineer that just happens to have field experience with Nepenthes.  I have however spent quite some time with taxonomists and can say that the responses to the original question in this thread are pretty much right as far as I can tell.

In the 1980's I found a lot of variety in N. rafflesiana in a particular part of Brunei.  I used the terms 'nivea' 'nigropurpurea' to describe extremes of coloration and 'elongata' and 'gigantea' to describe some of the forms.  I sort of made these names up with guidance from some student botanists (a very young Charles Clarke amongst them).  They may have been used before and are probably not scientifically valid, but they stuck and so far as I know in horticultural circles we can call things pretty much what we want, although I feel we have a responsibility to try to be scientificaly accurate whereever we can.

Regarding N. alata, a look though the old herbarium sheets at the Manila Herbarium makes it pretty evident that in the old days in the Philippines, if they didn't know what a Nepenthes was, they just called it N. alata.  Remember that a lot of Nepenthes were discovered by botanists whose area of expertise was elsewhere, such as ferns, or even ornithologists who were amateur botanists, e.g Bertram E. Smythies (or was it the other way around?).

The N. alata from Sibuyan I thought was probably a distinct species when I found it.  I still think it may be but until we get a male flower to examine we can't be entirely sure - so it' stays as N. alata, Sibuyan form for now.

N. sanguinea hybridises readily with N. macfalanei and N. ramispina (depending upion whether it comes from the Genting or Cameron Highlands).  I think that hybridisation is what gives rise to the different forms.  Coloration is not important as has already been pointed out.  

So, there you go!
smile.gif
 
  • #14
That's right Rob. Down at about 1000m in Genting Highlands where N. sanguinea only grows with N. gracilis, there is no mistake about N. sanguinea.

At the top of Genting Highlands where all the three species: N. macfarlanei, N. ramispina and N. sanguinea grow side by side (see pixs from thread  
http://www.petflytrap.com/cgi-bin....=11220)
their hybriding can make identification difficult.

So if N. sanguinea had crossed with N. macfarlanei and its descendants  then mate back with N. sanguinea, do you still consider the descendants as a species? Ie, do you consider a Chinese with a great grandmother still a Chinese?

Choong
 
  • #15
For those of us living in lowland type environments, the 1000 meter sanguineas are of great interest.
Choong, what does the lowest growing sanguinea typically look like?

Trent
 
  • #16
Trent,

I didn't take any pictures at the 1000m site. Sven and Guenter did. But both the greenish type and the red are available. Of course the greenish variety are more common. I have seen a few red plants with 20 cm pitchers.

Choong
 
Back
Top