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!

Nepenthes Nomenclature

  • #21
if N. x trusmadiensis [it appears this supposed nothospecies was published as N. trusmadiensis, not the nothospecies N. x trusmadiensis]is not a legitimate nomenclature, then many of the Sarracenia natural hybrid nomenclature are not legitimate either, ie: S. x readii, S. x catesbaei, S. x exornata, S. x excellens.

It's not really a matter of the names being legitimate or not. You can check out the CP Database to see what's, what, for yourself. There is a Taxonomic database format page, that explains what the various entries in the database are, and what they're used for.

And, of course, just like N. trusmadiensis, none of the Sarracenia natural hybrids, were actually ever validly published as nothospecies, which, at least, some of them are. They were published as species (which they were assumed to be, at the time), which I believe keeps those names from being accepted by taxonomists. This has never prevented authors of popular books, hobby growers, or nurserymen from using those names. They are basically invalid grex names, for known hybrids. These last few thoughts are from my own interpretation - I could be mistaken. If you are really curious about this, I recommend asking Jan Schlauer.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
anramitaco, I appreciate your feedback, and taking the time to provide it.

Sure, conversations, such as the one you had recently at J&L Orchids, was informal, yet acceptable. It was also, face to face, where misunderstandings, of the nature you describe, can quickly and easily be resolved. Forums may seem contemporary, and they are, for now, but they're also archival. I've had lots of experience trying to decipher forum threads and posts, where the original posters are no longer readily accessible. In those cases, it is remarkable how cryptic some can seem.

If forums were like live conversations, such as chat rooms, all your precepts would be entirely valid.

I agree that calling Nepenthes, neps or Neps, as a general term, is just fine. I don't generally correct those, unless I'm in the thread for other reasons. I don't completely agree that leaving off the genus name of a particular species epithet, just because the thread is in the Nepenthes forum, to assume everyone will be able to decipher your meaning, and assuming too, that no other plant genera will be discussed there, seems a little inaccurate. Multiple genera are commonly referred to in many various threads and sub-forums. One of the first threads, having an issue, was one where the poster was affectionately calling his Drosera, "cap". It was not very intuitive, there being two commonly grown species, both with species epithets starting with those three letters.

When I was less-experienced, but not really a beginner; just new to forums, I spent much time mining information from forums. It was ultimately rewarding, but gave me insight on what to avoid, so the forum archives would ultimately be somewhat easier to mine. Search engines have improved, so all the pitfalls I learned, then, do not all apply, now. But, many of them still do, and most can improve the ease of mining.

I can't help being a little concerned about CP growers in their own countries. I periodically visit their forums, and notice how, I often, see plants referred to, I assume, in the vernacular of their native tongue, where translation programs, sometimes fail to translate. Regardless, I often discover interesting things, I might not realize, otherwise. When they make my navigation there, more difficult, they may just be doing the same thing we're discussing in this post. With translation, many interesting things can often be gleaned there. I certainly hope to help, such non-English speaking visitors to our forum, avoid some possibly similar problems.
 
  • #23
I'm not trying to get into anymore superfluous debates that have already been had over the subject, but I will hardily agree that I think your editing of posts to hyper-correct every trivial reference to each species or genus is what some would call:

"next level"

However, sometimes the corrections can be welcomed for clarification. Other times, it just comes off as being a little heavy handed with the "moderation".
 
  • #24
Dexenthes,

I am often thinking, just those same kind of thoughts. Especially when I'm adjusting/moderating other's posts. I have no doubt, that many of my adjustments are easily perceived as picky, even extremely so.

I can't help but also remember my own experiences, having such difficulties at navigating various forum archives, to mine them for data. I spent many hours, day after day, for months at a time, until I was certain I'd gleaned all I could on each subject I was researching.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I couldn't help but develop a mindset, through the experiences I had with the various difficulties encountered when working through forums to find helpful information and how they could, more easily, have that information, accessible to my data mining efforts.

I'm not actually expecting to have everyone be meticulous with plant names. I certainly can't even expect that my own posts will be completely nomenclature error free. I also couldn't come up with enough time to do thorough nomenclature checks/moderations in all threads/posts, or even anywhere near a majority of them, and I don't intend to.

My primary purpose, in these past few intensive efforts, is to help increase awareness of this issue, and present some handy tools that can help everyone be more familiar with nomenclature and how to match it to the plants we grow. So we can all be more confident that the plants we are growing, match the names we are calling them.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
As a linguist by training the egregious spelling errors and total lack of consideration for grammar on public forums bothers me, .

LOL. While not a linguist, myself, I can relate. In some respects, I find errors in spelling to be particularly distracting when said spelling results in another word which does not fit the sentence or when an incorrect form of a word is used. For example, "He wanted to thank them for they're advise." instead of writing "He wanted to thank them for their advice." The use of the wrong form of "their" and the misuse of "advise" is distracting, to me, as such errors disrupt the flow of the sentence -- not unlike hitting a pothole as one is blissfully cruising down a highway. (For any who might not be "wordies" and be rather puzzled by advise vs advice ... "advise" is a verb while "advice" is a noun. So one could say, "Would you be willing to advise me on the correct culture for this Nepenthes? I could definitely use your advice.")

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. ;)

 
  • #26
One thing that confused me was being corrected recently about D. tokaiensis being D. 'Kansai'. But when I went to research it, D. tokaiensis is much more prevelent in literature and the general information on it seems to be more thoroughly researched. Why is it that I didn't use an applicable name?
 
  • #27
D. x tokaiensis used to be thought of as a form of spatulata, ie. spatulata 'Kansai'. When discovered it was a natural hybrid (and even further, it is now well known the taxon consists of both hybrid and polyploid species), it was renamed. The former is actually not valid because it is not a representative of the spatulata species, and the latter.... not sure if it was ever properly published but it is the now typically used name and is the norm in referring to that taxon.

Also, in regards to the "nothospecies" publications originally describing them as species, that does not invalidate the name due to the fact we now know them as hybrids, it simply changes them to being denoted as hybrids. N. trusmadiensis does become N. x trusmadiensis, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Clumpers vs. splitters

Technically they should all be considered one species because they can almost all interbreed with one another and create fertile offspring.

I'm for Nepenthes all being subspecies!

I've always intended reading Darwin's Origin of Species because it seems to me that surely he delineated species more clearly than current plant taxonomy reflects. The Splitters are clearly having their day and it has been that way for years now. But I expect a Lumper backlash and perhaps a few heroes will arise. :mwahaha:
 
  • #29
Somewhat off topic:

The chronology of taxonomic nomenclature of Drosera rotundifolia × D. spatulata (spellings as from original texts where possible):

Drosera spathulata var rotundata (= D. lourieri var rotundata Makino 1894) (Schlaurer lists as D. spatulata var rotundata Makino ex Ueda 1989)
Drosera spathulata var tokaiensis Komiya & Shibata 1978 as new subspecies
Drosera tokaiensis Komiya & Shibata 1991 as comb. et stat. nov. (new name at different rank (species)), gives evidence that it is an intermediate between D. spatulata and D. rotundifolia
Drosera kansiensis Debbert 1996 (synonym of D. rotudifolia × D. spatulata, later synonym of D. tokaiensis)
Drosera 'Kansai' D'Amato 1998 cultivar published as Drosera spatulata 'Kansai' - later deteremined as D. rotundifolia × spatulata
Drosera tokaiensis ssp hyugaensis Seno 2003

Drosera tokaiensis ssp hyugaensis is a sterile population of D. rotundifolia × spatulata. In reading the paper it is my opinion that the morphological differences that the author uses to assign these plants to a rank of subspecies are due to the amphiploid nature of the existing fertile populations. Amphiploids often have larger structures such as leaves, stomata or pedicels

For whatever reason the entry in the Carnivorous Plant Database for the cultivar Drosera 'Kansai' is marked as the accepted name. This database is Jan Schlauer's personal database and may reflect his personal assessments and orthographical changes which may differ from other taxonomists. It may also not be up to date or contain errors.
 
  • #30
:offtopic:
D. x tokaiensis used to be thought of as a form of spatulata, ie. spatulata 'Kansai'. When discovered it was a natural hybrid (and even further, it is now well known the taxon consists of both hybrid and polyploid species), it was renamed. The former is actually not valid because it is not a representative of the spatulata species, and the latter.... not sure if it was ever properly published but it is the now typically used name and is the norm in referring to that taxon.

Also, in regards to the "nothospecies" publications originally describing them as species, that does not invalidate the name due to the fact we now know them as hybrids, it simply changes them to being denoted as hybrids. N. trusmadiensis does become N. x trusmadiensis, etc.

Howdy hcarlton,

Of course, the case of D. x tokaiensis, is similar to the case of D. anglica and D. x anglica. But, fortunately, with D. x tokaiensis (formerly known as D. spatulata "Kansai"), it was validly published, using the cultivar registration process, as the cultivar, D. 'Kansai'. Thus, avoiding some of the confusion intrinsic to the sometimes slow to change, taxonomic processes, and using a purely horticultural (yet still international), naming convention. One of my main points, being that, for the sake of communication, with other CP growers, and especially our fellow non-English speaking CP growers, we should use, whenever possible, internationally accepted names, avoiding names, such unaccepted botanical names (especially when an alternative accepted name exists), non-standard abbreviations, and cutesy or personal nicknames, which could be misunderstood. Here we have the perfect opportunity to reduce, misunderstanding, at least temporarily. Our language or other community-particular CP jargon, will be challenge enough, for those not familiar with it.

We're human, of course, and we'll always have the tendency towards creating jargon. I'm simply trying to make us more aware of that tendency, and to consider how our own English-centered CP jargon can affect our communication, especially internationally and for non-English speakers.

I'm also trying to inspire us, to be more cognizant of that tendency, especially while we're communicating, in writing, on international forums.
------------
CP Database

I highly recommend that anyone with questions concerning the CP Database or any other difficult CP taxonomy question, should contact Jan Schlauer. I haven't had occasion to communicate with any other taxonomists, about taxonomy, except once with a question about Pinguicula orchidioides to Fernando Rivadavia, but I met Jan at the San Francisco ICPS Convention, and have emailed him, several other times, through the years, concerning questions of CP taxonomy.

His answers were always concise and his explanations always exceptionally well reasoned and understandable. I can't imagine anyone having a better grasp of taxonomy, especially as it concerns CP.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top