Date: Mon, 19 May 97 16:13 EDT From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1981$foo@default> Subject: Re: Ventrata or burkei ?
> From: Ide Laurent <ide@ARCADIS.BE>
>
> I was still thinking I own a Nep burkei, seeing the picture in Slack's book.
> In the exhibition, I saw the same plant as mine, and discovered it was a
> ventrata, natural hybrid of ventricosa and alata as you know.
Umm, as far as I can tell, N.burkei is N.ventricosa with just a tiny
bit N.truncata from some cross generations ago. Now, please don't
take this to be a fact, this is only my thoughts on the matter. I'm
not that familar with the Philipine (sp?) Nepenthes. To my semi-trained
eyes, the largest difference appears to be the coloration between the
two and that N.burkei tends to be larger than N.ventricosa...
Also, I wonder why so many people are worried that their plants
might be hybrids or have hybridgenic genes in them. I have a feeling
that almost all species (including the only species left in _Homo_,
also) have at least some genes; either left over from before
specification or from fertile hybrids; from other closely related
species. Yes, I want to know what my plants are, but I'm not about
devalue natural (or even very unnatural) hybrids - as long as they
are still functional; and in the case unnatural hybrids, appealing
to the eyes.
> So, knowing the ventrata is a 'bastard' of ventricosa and burkei a form of
> ventricosa, how can I really make the difference between these plants and
> clearly identify the mine ?
N.alata has very distinct petioles. N.ventricosa does not. F1
generation of N.ventricosa * N.alata does not have petioles, but
the lamina does constrict near the stem, as if it wants to have
petioles. ;) BTW, unhappy or not well established N.ventricosa can
look very much like the hybrid with N.alata (thinner pitchers) so
look for the lack of petioles (or attemps at having them) to help.
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:03 PST