>what is the difference between N. stenophylla and N. fallax. I have a so
>called N. stenophylla that is very hirsute with long redish hairs. I am
>told this could be N. fallax since N. stenophylla has not been introduced
>into culture yet. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
There are (at least) two rather different species which have been called
N.stenophylla in the past. One of which, the original _N.stenophylla_ of
MASTERS, described and depicted in Gard.Chron. and represented by an
authentic (but not type, because it is younger than the protologue!)
specimen from the VEITCH nursery at K, has an ovate-elliptic lid
(distinctly longer than wide, without terminal appendage) and is very
similar to _N.fusca_. This has been collected in N Borneo and is rather
certainly the same as various specimens from N Borneo which were called
"N.fusca" in the popular literature (remember that "true" _N.fusca_ was
described after specimens from Kalimantan).
The other, viz. the confused N.stenophylla auct. non MAST.: DANSER has a
(nearly) orbicular lid and is mostly more densely hairy (but note that
leaves and pitchers lose much of their indumentum in later stages of
dvelopment). DANSER has not seen any material of the "true" _N.stenophylla_
(if he had, I bet he would not have described _N.fusca_ as a new species!).
So he concluded only from the (poor) protologue and the (fair) drawing that
the species with orbicular lids (nothing of these is mentioned in the
protologue or even slightly indicated in the drawing, however) was
N.stenophylla. DANSER illustrated this species (which is *not*
_N.stenophylla_) and the characteristic pitcher lids rather aptly in his
monograph. Unfortunately, all subsequent authors have uncritically followed
DANSER and perpetuated his mistake.
So if your plant has orbicular pitcher lids, you have the wrong
N.stenophylla of DANSER, the oldest available name of which being
_N.fallax_ G.BECK. Otherwise you have the true _N.stenophylla_ of MASTERS
(vulgo "N.fusca" auct. non DANSER: KURATA).
Yes, I have posted this stuff some time ago on this list but some readers
(perhaps the newcomers) might be appreciative of a repetition.
The nomenclatural and taxonomic history of both species is rather complex,
and I am going to deal with this (and some further) trouble in a future
paper. That is, Matthew, if you are not going to deal with the same stuff
in your Blumea article. BTW, how far is this one?
Kind regards
Jan