Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 02:38:24 +0200 From: Johannes.Marabini@t-online.de (Johannes Marabini) To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1812$foo@default> Subject: A few thoughts about the sceletal revision of Nepenthes
maybe I am a little late, but a german proverb says:" better late than
never". I had a long time to study the the sceletal revision of
Nepenthes of Jebb and Cheek and I am afraid I have to brake the
enthusiasm about this paper. In my opinion, this revision is not ripe
to be published in Flora Malesiana.
Now, let me tell you, why I think so. I am working with Nepenthes more
than 15 years and visited some of the locations in Borneo. And I
studied Danser's and Macfarlanei's monographies. Sure, Danser and
Macfarlane made some mistakes f.e. with N.stenophylla and N.fallax
(you could follow the discussion in this group), but fundamental they
have done (especially Danser) a good work. And one of the good ideas
of Danser was to form a synoptic statement of the species: Vulgatae,
Montanae, Nobilis... . Nothing has remained in the new monography. Did
they find a new, better way of statement? I don't believe so. They
devide the species in 'Sumatran Species, Bornean Species'... . And
what about the species which you can find in Sumatra and Borneo, or
Borneo and Australia and which are forming local types? In the key you
can find N. ampullaria in the 'Borneo key' and in the 'Sumatran key',
once the lid is narrow, in the other key it is more than 3 times as
long as wide, and so on ... . What now? The specie is clear described.
Some more about geographic races and geographic isolation. I am under
the impression, that they do not exist in this revision. On the one
hand, the separate N. macrophylla from N. edwardsiana with the same
arguments which were used for the description of the subspecie!, on
the other hand they accept all forms of N. mirabilis, although the
differences there are more evident. And I cannot see the reason, why
N. eymai is separated from N. maxima! I do not know, if they have seen
the local races of N.fusca on Kinabalu and them near the Tambunan road
in Sabah. The leave-apex of the Kinabalu-form is emarginate, but more
peltate, the glandular boss under the lid rather long, the leafe-apex
of the Tambunan-form only emarginate and the glandular boss rather
short. The distance are a few miles! And what about the forms of
N.rafflesiana? And N.xiphioides and N. pectinata should be the same?
Why? N. pectinata and N. singalana are nearby, but xiphioides???
What about the key to the species? O.K., it should be skeletal - it is
lean. Mostly you have only one characteristic to find your way and
this is the deficit. F.e. you can find pitchers of N. inermis with a
present peristome (short shoots and young plants) and also N. ovata
without a hook-like process near the base of the lid, and N. singalana
with a triangular stem ... . And what about the species out of
SE-Asia, like N. pervillei, masoalensis, distillatoria, anamensis ...
. I couldn't find them in the key, only in the discription.
They mentioned, that over 280 hybrid names have been published, but
they discribed only 3! natural hybrids. I see that they cannot mention
cultivar hybrids, but what about all the other natural hybrids, which
you can find nearby the spiecies?. What will help a key, if you cannot
separate them from the species.
And at last, I see, that a latin description is not modern and only in
a short form is necessary, but every scientist in the world understand
latin and it should be a tradition to use it, especially in Kew
and Leiden.
Now, I don't want to bore you you with many details, f.e. with the
status of N. faicaliana (you can see a photo in my homepage). This
specie has sure nothing to do with N.stenophylla - it was discribed
from Mulu!. There is a lot of work in this revision, but the authors
should think about this criticism.
bye Johannes
-- mailto @email: Johannes.marabini@t-online.de Homepage: http://home.t-online.de/home/johannes.marabini/index.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:32 PST