> I have been updating the information on my spreadsheet of the genus
> Nepenthes,
> and need a little help with some things I was unable to find out
> either from
> references or the net
Have you examined the net carefully? There is a wonderful synonym
list including (and solving) some of the problems addressed in your
postings: http://www.hpl.hp.com/bot/cp_home
The Carnivorous Plant Homepage by Rick Walker.
> Species cited '94/'95:
One was formally validated in 1995!
> I am after verification of the species (Is it accepted as a legit.
> species?),
> its founder (eg.Hook/Danser) and country of origin for the
> following (one or
> two gaps unfilled. Any errors?):
> * N.aristolochioidensis.
"aristolochioides". Without your extension.
> (Founder?),
Prof. Willem Meijer found it, Drs. Matthew Jebb & Martin Cheek named
it, (still?) unpublished.
> Sumatra.
Kerintji, G. Tudjuh.
> (High/lowlander?)
rather high.
> * N.danseri. (Founder?)
Name by Jebb & Cheek, unpublished (?).
>, Waigeo & Halmahera. (High/lowlander?)
Low.
> * N.diatas (Founder?)
Discovered by DeWilde & DeWilde-Duyfjes, named by Jebb & Cheek
(unpublished), very close to (IMHO not specifically distinct from)
_N.singalana_.
>, Sumatra
G. Bandahara (G. Leuser region).
> (High/lowlander?)
High.
> * N.macrophylla. Marabini
Discovered by Johannes Marabini, invalid (?) combination by Jebb
& Cheek.
> Borneo Highlander.
Yes.
> * N.adnata Tamin & Hotta
First discovered by Meijer, nomen nudum by Rusdi Tamin & Prof.
M. Hotta (validated) ex mihi (Blumea 39:141, 1995; cf. www page!).
> Sumatra
Above R. Tjampo.
> Highlander
No, low. However in the region some pseudo-highland species do (or
did: possibly now extinct!) occur (e.g. _N. tenuis_).
> * N.soma - appeared in Japanese catalogues 1989.
It (spelled "Sohna") was published in M. Lecoufle's book in 1989
without description (nomen dubium).
> Does it exist or is it > synonymous?
Probably both.
> * N.philippinense/ensis (?) Macf. Philippines! H/L - is it
> considered a seperate species to N.alata now?
Yes, e.g. by myself. There are other opinions, however.
> * Nepenthes anamensis has two significant synonyms; geoffrayi and
> kampotiana. Do either of these names apply to a seperate species
> in themselves,
No.
> or are plants labelled to this effect actually N.anamensis
Not always, some misidentified _N.mirabilis_ clones have been
labelled as one of these.
> (assuming N.anamensis is not a part of N.mirabilis complex
Certainly not!!! But some clones of _N.mirabilis_ have (wrongly!!!)
been labelled as "N.anamensis" or as one of its synonyms (assumedly in
order to increase their commercial value).
> Re: Nepenthes neglecta. Reported originally from Labuan. This
> species is suggested to be extinct which is hardly surprising as
> Labuan has been so heavily industrialised and developed since the
> 60's. Does anyone have any idea as to when the species was last
> reported as having been located there?
It was assumedly only collected twice. The (sterile) original material
collected by Beccari has not been rediscovered yet. But another
specimen (at K) was seen and determined as _N.neglecta_ by Macfarlane
shortly after he had described his species, and this one does even
have an inflorescence. It is rather straightforward _N.hirsuta_ and
should be selected as the neotype if the holotype cannot be traced.
> Nepenthes argentii, what is...?? Jan, Ch'ien, anyone??
A new species from the Philippines to be described by Jebb & Cheek.
> Nepenthes eymae/infundibuliformis: which is the definite accepted
> species name now, in assumption that it has been resolved (ie. which
> was first (?))?
It is not sufficiently distinct from _N.maxima_ to keep it as a
species, I'm afraid. So this case can be solved rather easily:
_N.maxima_ is the correct name.
If you want to retain it as a species (e.g. in order to pop up your
sellerlist...), you get some problems. Formally, the effective
date of publication is decisive here. But this is exactly the crux.
Allegedly the Turnbull & Middleton paper was "preprinted" just a few
days after that by Kurata. However, nobody seems to have received
this preprinted text before the whole volume of Reinwardtia was
published, and that was definitely *after* Kurata's (however,
likewise "preprinted") text. As long as the situation cannot be
resolved without doubt, all available information is to be considered
without any weighting so that a comparison of the preprint dates
(which are not necessarily dates of effective publication) favours
the Kurata publication, i.e. _N.eymae_.
Kind regards
Jan