Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:32:49 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg128$foo@default> Subject: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
Dear Dave & al.,
> > A difference in the sense of the ICNCP should be more obvious than
> > that (ideally recognizable even in seedlings).
>
> So then, how did Bruce Bednar name N. * wrigliana cv. 'Kosobe'?
Did he do so? I have never seen any text in which the cultivar has
been registered. Have you?
BTW, Phill Mann has sent me a list of _Nepenthes_ names that included
many entries which I have never seen before. Has anyone ever read
anything on one (or several) of the following names used as epithets
of _Nepenthes_? If so, please communicate the complete reference
(author, publication, year, page number (the very number on which the
very name appears for the *first* time in each single case, please!))
to me. adTNXvance!
Adorable Fuso
alata f. variegata
Asahi
Attractive Fuso
Bario
Bastido
Bella
benkei
benkei inversa
Bizen
carunculosa
David Parkyn
Dreamy Yamamoto
East Evergaldes
gracillata
Grey Mist
Hideki
Hirakata
Idyllic Koto
J & B
Jeanie Babe
Kei
Kihachijo
Kishino
Kiso
Koiwado
Kyoko
Londt
Mekata
Menarabe
Mercury
Midori
Minami Triumph
Miyo
Nago
Nakaccho
Nanbara
Niwa
Noboriryu
Okazaki
Okuyama
pangulubauensis
Petra
Pisacho
Rapa
Raven
ryaniana
Sachiko
Sakura
Sanyo
Saturn
Shamenbana
Showa
Snazz Chas
spaxima
Supari
Tametomo
tinkerei
Trina
ventrillima
Venus
wrigleyana cv. 'Kosobe'
Yakkome
If no reference can be traced, the names are no more than nomina nuda
(author: Phill Mann in sched., 1996).
> Can (should) cultivars even be used for this polymorphic genus?
Cultivar names can be used in any taxonomic context because they do
not bear any taxonomic significance. If they should be applied is
to be decided by the respective horticulturist/author.
> > The parent plants are not designated cultivars. So why bother with
> > naming their offspring separately if they do not warrant cultivar
> > selection?
> > A plant cannot be regarded unique just because of its parents.
>
> This is the problem I'm having with naming them as cultivars.
> So should Meryl's friend (Or I, in the future) name his plants as
> cultivars or not?
If they do not deserve it then they should not be named oter than _N.
rafflesiana_.
> I have seedlings of N.ventricosa * N.burkei (sp?). Since many
> people consider them the *same* species, what do I have?
Taxonomic problems.
> BTW,
> I have seen no *consistant* difference with regards to the
> angles of the lids between the few clones of N.ventricosa and
> the single N.burkei I have. Instead, the pitchers of the
> N.burkei tend to be slightly larger and are a uniform yellow-
> green color. The peristome is bright red and there are red
> streaks on the lid. The pitchers on N.ventricosa are two toned
> (like Fred Flintstone's face), there is a distinct line where
> the color changes. I can see this same line in the N.burkei
> (and most Nepenthes), but there's no change in color. Are these
> really a pair of subspecies to each other?
The matter is not settled yet. It seems that _N. ventricosa_ is a
fairly widespread species with rather constant characteristics. _N.
burkei_ was collected only very rarely, and perhaps the true thing
(type specimen and clonal offspring) was collected only once.
The (most) plants in cultivation may be extreme forms of _N.
ventricosa_ (which could account for the difficulties many people
have in telling the two apart). The type specimen differs from _N.
ventricosa_ in having less ventricose and more tubulose pitchers with
an oblique rather than horizontal peristome. It may be the product of
introgression by _N. ventricosa_ into some other species. However, I
do not know if the two "parent" species co-occur at the type
locality.
For the time being, I would keep _N. burkei_ and _N. ventricosa_
apart. So if one parent was correctly identified _N. burkei_ the
seedlings you have can be regarded as hybrids (they could be given an
own scientific or cultivar name but the bastard formula is entirely
sufficient).
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST