I have just received a paper through interlibrary loan:
"The Ecology and Distribution of Bornean _Nepenthes_"
by
J.H.Adam, C.C.Wilcock & M.D.Swaine
in the
Journal of Tropical Forest Science 5(1):13-25 (1992).
This is the best paper I have seen from these authors so far.
First, they do *not* provide keys, descriptions, or pictures 8-(
But they give a list of information concerning ecology and distribution of
31 Bornean species of _Nepenthes_. This list is interesting for two
reasons:
1. The information included:
a) The taxa _N.trichocarpa_ (p.16) and _N.hookeriana_ (p.18) considered to be
natural hybrids by some authors (including myself) are called "species".
b) The authors cite Kurata (1976, who in turn is citing older references, I
assume) for a record of _N.gymnamphora_ in southernmost Borneo (p.17; this
doubtful occurrence has to be reconfirmed by more recent collections. But
maybe _N.borneensis_, p.21, is the same, i.e. a synonym!).
c) They use the name _N.fusca_ (p.20; which I consider a straightforward
synonym of _N.stenophylla_ MAST. v.i.).
d) _N.edwardsiana_ and _N.villosa_ are treated as separate species (p.22).
e) They publish synonymy between _N.decurrens_ and _N.northiana_ for the
first time (p.22; this is in perfect accordance to my own rumination).
f) They create new names for some natural hybrids (p.22):
_N.ghazallyiana_ = _N.gracilis_ * _mirabilis_
_N.sarawakiensis_ = _N.tentaculata_ * _muluensis_
2. The information conveyed by omission:
a) _N.neglecta_ and _N.leptochila_ are not mentioned:
Maybe this indicates the authors to believe these two to be synonyms of
_N.hirsuta_ (like myself; but they don't dare to write it!).
b) _N.stenophylla_ MAST. is not mentioned:
This is a longer story...
Danser has confused _N.fallax_ for _N.stenophylla_ because he had never
seen
type specimens of the "real" _N.stenophylla_ (the original description
and a
drawing in "Gardener's Chronicle" is not sufficient to grasp the
distinguishing features of this species.).
As most subsequent authors (not caring too much for herbarium research;
there *is* a type specimen at Kew!), followed Danser in his mistake,
*almost all* plants called _N.stenophylla_(AUCT.NON MAST.:DANSER)
afterwards
were indeed _N.fallax_.
On the other hand, Danser has seen specimens which quite certainly
belong to
_N.stenophylla_ MAST. But he thought this was a new species and called it
_N.fusca_.
_N.fusca_ DANSER is the name applied by *almost all* subsequent authors
(not caring... v.s.) to what should better be called _N.stenophylla_ MAST.
c) The authors still do not publish their invalid name _N.sandakanensis_,
which
they have applied to *all* specimens of _N.fallax_ in the Leiden herbarium
(some of which had been determined as "N.stenophylla" by Danser, v.s.).
Happy _Nepenthes_ing!
Kind regards
Jan