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

The attached image shows a plant which is,
apparently, the true N. burkei, or so Charles
Clarke has told me after conferring with
Shigeo Kurata. The pitcher shown is still
quite young, and its peristome has not
yet assumed its customary ruddy hue.

Note that it is morphologically quite similar
to N. ventricosa, but the "waist" of the pitcher
is not as constricted as one finds in that case.
However, my personal opinion is that it is pretty
nearly indistinguishable from N. ventricosa.

burkei.jpg
 
wow! thanks for the pic.
biggrin.gif


The only differance I see between N. ventrincosa and N. burkei is that N. burkei has a more elongated pitcher than ventrincosa, mine [ventrincosa] tend to be a little more fatter and shorter [about 4-5 in. tall, and about 1 1/2 in. wide] and the peristome seems to be redder
biggrin.gif
 
like this one too
you sure making our ID work easier
Thanks
Arie
 
If you look at the photos from Exotica, it gets even tougher, as they have a elongated form of ventricosa.

Regards,

Joe
 
There should be a difference in the size of the lids also

The plant shown on Exotica is very different again.
 
Rob,

Do you have a URL for the image you reference?

I obtained this plant from Exotica, so it should
be identical to what Geoff is showing.
 
I love that place (and petflytrap
wink.gif
). Here

N. burkie

burkei.jpg
 
Thank you for the reference. A direct comparison of this
image, and mine, above, shows that the overall pitcher
size and shape are the same. The markings, while sparser
in my image, are of the same color, shape, and
size. I suspect that they are fewer in number because the
cutting I have came from further up the vine, and pitchers
located there are, in many species, less colorful. Certainly,
I've observed this with N. ventricosa. Once I get a basal
node to break, should have some more colorful pitchers for
a direct comparison.

Finally, the other major difference that really stands out is
the color of the peristome. However, as I mentioned above,
the peristome on my plant has yet to assume its reddish color.
This happens after the pitcher opens, and is a function of
the light intensity to which the peristome is exposed. Since
many of my plants are cultivated under artificial light, their
coloration is sometimes inferior to that of specimens grown
under natural sunlight.

In any case, I appreciate everyone's input regarding this
thread!
 
I hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but even if this is the plant that was named N. burkei, does it look different enough from N. ventricosa to be a different species? To me, N. mirabilis "echinostoma" looks more different from conventional N. mirabilis types than N. burkei looks compared to N. ventricosa. N. sibuyanensis looks different enough to me, and they are considered similar species.
The plant pictured is very attaractive, regardless.

Regards,

Joe
 
  • #10
I do agree, as I indicated before, that this plant looks a lot
like ventricosa to me. However, I am not a taxonomist!

In any case, it is good to see that this posting has generated
a bit of controversy, for that was my intent.
 
  • #11
Kudos to you for your selfless approach on the subject.
 Again, as with the clipeata topic, these kind of threads are very interesting, and it's cool to see people from all over the world pool knowledge. I think Rob has plans to eventually go to the site and see if he can locate it. By that time, you may have a giant, healthy plant.
 I think there will be a decision on this subject eventually.

 Regards,

 Joe
 
  • #12
Is Nep. burkei easy to grow, like a ventricosa?
 
  • #13
Tony,

I notice you have two clones on your site. Have you grown any of them larger than that, and can you make a comparison of neps plant with the clones you have?

Regards,

Joe
 
  • #14
Just finished snapping some photos.

The clone from Exotica Plants.  The pitchers were lacking all color when I got the plant.  Now after producing several in my greenhouse they are showing some color.  I have not done any cutting of this clone to see if I can get lower pitchers to form.
nburkep.jpg


The two clones I have from Borneo Exotics:
clone Bu-1 (sorry a tad dark).  These are good size plants about 15cm across but not mature.
nburk1.jpg


clone Bu-2 this is from a plant a 5cm larger than the previous picture.
nburk2.jpg
The color will darken up on this one yet as it's fairly newly opened. But I wanted to get a shot of the largest pitcher the plant had.

Tony
 
  • #15
My understanding is that one of the determining factors is whether or not the lid will cover the pitcher opening if you press it down on a mature pitcher.  This seems to be the case for these plants, while is typically not the case for N. ventricosa.

Yes they seem to be very easy to grow like N. ventricosa.  They seem to not have the tendancy to stop pitchering for a while like N. ventricosa does for me.
Tony

Edit:
I wanted to add that the plant I got from Exotica was apparently the top of the vine since it was growing apically and not a cutting with a side shoot developed from a lateral bud.
 
  • #16
Tony,

Do you think the Borneo Exotic plants are the same as the Exotica one? Do you sell the Exotica one, or is that your only specimen?
I might e-mail Geoff Mansell and see if he is going to have more in the near future, just for the interested parties.

Regards,

Joe
 
  • #17
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but even if this is the plant that was named N. burkei, does it look different enough from N. ventricosa to be a different species? To me, N. mirabilis "echinostoma" looks more different from conventional N. mirabilis types than N. burkei looks compared to N. ventricosa. N. sibuyanensis looks different enough to me, and they are considered similar species.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Grif,
Don't forget that species distinctions are not only visual. In some cases (there is a vine snake in South America that is virtually indistinguishable from another vine snake in south east Asia), two completely different species can evolve very similar characteristics to deal with similar environments. It's called "convergent evolution."
The species distinction may lie in the enzymes produced (which you can't see), the shape of the pollen grains (too little to really see), or any number of other itty-bitty differences.

Just my two cents
biggrin.gif
 
  • #18
Schlo,

That is a good point. I have seen a comparison of those two snakes on Jeff Corwin, and it's very uncanny. I am not a taxonomist, and I don't know how far beyond visual and physical measuring the taxonomists decide speciation.

Regards,

Joe
 
  • #19
I don't know much about N. burkie, but I just wanted to point out that N. sibuyanensis is a lot different than a N. ventricosa, although they are similar. N. sibuyanensis is much larger, wider peristome, different pitcher color, as well as a bunch of other more scientifical factors. Laters
smile.gif
.
 
  • #20
I don't believe either Bu-1 or 2 is the same as the clone from Exotica. I will be taking cuttings of the Exotica clone but it is way too soon to determine availability etc.

There are many factors which determine if a plant population should be considered a species. Often the taxonomists can't decide 100% either or which factors should have more weight in making such a call. Usually color is not one of them since it is lost in making herbarium specimens.
Tony
 
Back
Top