Could someone please forward this back to David Wong:
>We've found upper ampullaria pitchers, again I'd say one plant in over
>10,000 and a plant which I have read reference about, but never actually
>scientifically or plainly published.
Not really "never"; two papers did appear already which published exactly
this +/- "scientifically or plainly":
T.L. & S.GREEN -Stem pitchers on _Nepenthes ampullaria_-
MALAYAN NATURE J. 18:209 (1964)
C.CLARKE & J.A.MORAN -A further record of aerial pitchers produced by
_Nepenthes ampullaria_ JACK- MALAYAN NATURE J. 47:321-2 (1994)
> I'm refering to the hybrid
>xrafflesiana by gracilis. Can anyone out there inform me if this natural
>hybrid (not the man made ones) have been documented and published in any
>journal?
For the scientific naming of hybrids it is immaterial if the first valid
name was applied to a man made or a natural hybrid.
>If not, I'd like to invite my colleague Dr Tan to publish his find.
I do not know of any publication dealing (definitely) with this hybrid (it
seems to be still free for Dr Tan).
N. * dominiana (sphalmate "dominii") and N. * intermedia were originally
published as _N.rafflesiana_ * "species incerta borneensis". Later, some
authors (e.g. MACFARLANE) have interpreted the second parent as
_N.gracilis_ but still later it was BEDNAR, who gave good reasons that the
second parent was indeed _N.hirsuta_, and not _N.gracilis_.
BTW, your request and my subsequent search of the www database revealed a
mistake (i.e. *my* mistake, inexcusable, apologies...) in the database:
N. * edinensis is cited as:
_N.rafflesiana * ((rafflesiana * gracilis) * (rafflesiana * ampullaria))_
But because the parents of N. * edinensis were _N.rafflesiana_ and N. *
chelsonii, the correct formula must read:
_N.rafflesiana * ((rafflesiana * hirsuta) * (rafflesiana * ampullaria))_
Mea culpa, sorry!
Jan