Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:09:51 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg79$foo@default> Subject: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
Dear Doug,
> Firstly I have a plant
> labelled N. spectabilis x bongso, should that now be labelled as N.
> spectabilis x talangensis? Is bongso a synonym for talangensis? If so
> does this mean that the name N. bongso should theoretically become
> obsolete, or does N. bongso refer to a distinct morphological
> subgrouping within the species, N. talangensis?
_N. talangensis_ is a valid name for *SOME* plants which have been
*CONFUSED* with _N. bongso_ (also still a valid name!) in the past.
So it depends on what was the parent species. Read the
protologue of _N. talangensis_ carefully and see if you
can decide what is the correct name (_N. bongso_ or
_N. talangensis_). Then adjust your lables.
> I also have a plant
> labelled N. rafflesiana x stenophylla, should this plant also be
> relabelled as N. rafflesiana x fallax? If so should the name N.
> stenophylla be used for this species or should it be replaced by N.
> fallax in all nepenthes collections?
_N. fallax_ is the correct name for *SOME* plants that have been
*CONFUSED* with _N. stenophylla_ in the past. Unfortunately the one
who confused them was DANSER (the _Nepenthes_ emperor) himself. He
did not know the type of _N. stenophylla_ which looks rather
different. Few subscribers of the cp list will have access to
the protologue or type of _N. stenophylla_ (however, you should have
or create access to Danser's text if you want to identify
_Nepenthes_), so here some problems could arise. With Danser's text
at your disposal, look if your plant looks like _N. fusca_. If this
is the case and your plants are not from Kalimantan (Indonesian
Borneo), then you probably have _N. stenophylla_. If the plant looks
like what Danser has (erroneously) depicted and described as "N.
stenophylla", then your plant is definitely _N. fallax_.
Hybrids are frequently rather difficult to identify so rather try to
trace the parent species.
> My next query is in relation to the identification of seedlings
> that may arise from a nepenthes cross
> I have done between a female N. rafflesiana (white) with the pollen
> from N rafflesiana(brunei) x N. rafflesiana (singapore giant). This
> should produce the species N. rafflesiana. It is highly improbable or
> impossible that such a cross would take place in nature. Should such
> crosses (I use the word loosely) be assigned cultivar names to
> seperate them from naturally occuring variations within the same
> species?
Yes if you want to give them a name to distinguish them from other
clones.
> I last query is unfortunately about a plant or plants that I
> do not own and if the exploitation of nepenthes in the wild continues
> may in fact never get to see. Are N. aristolochioides and N. tudjah
> one and the same? If so which is the correct name?
None. Supposedly, "N. aristolochioides" will be validated sometimes
(we are waiting since two years...) and will then be the correct name.
"N. spec. "Tudjuh"" is only a bogus name (for the same species)
indicating the locality. It has no nomenclatural significance
whatsoever.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST