Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 19:30:01 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1815$foo@default> Subject: Re: A few thoughts about the sceletal revision of Nepenthes
Dear Johannes (and perhaps a few others),
well, I am not the authors you discuss but perhaps I can clarify at
least one point.
> And N.xiphioides and N. pectinata should be the same? Why?
> N.pectinata and N. singalana are nearby, but xiphioides???
This is certainly a confusion caused by the fact that the name N.
pectinata is based on mixed specimens, viz. of _N. singalana_ *and*
what Danser considered to be Sumatran specimens of _N.
gymnamphora_(!).
In our paper (Blumea 39:139, 1994), Joe Nerz and I have lectotypified
N. pectinata with material of the latter (i.e. _N. gymnamphora_ sensu
Danser, quoad specimina sumatrana). We have seen all the extant type
material at both L and BO and concluded that the protologue (i.e. the
text *and* the accompanying illustration) is best represented by
the specimen Buennemeijer 700bis at Leiden. Of course this one lacks
all characters of _N. singalana_, which are (due to the heterogeneous
nature of the original material) mixed into both the description and
the illustration of N. pectinata. Extensive field studies by Joe
Nerz, Andreas Wistuba & coll. in Sumatra have shown clearly that no
plant (not even hybrids) can be found in the wild that has such
diverse pitcher types as present in the herbarium material included
in N. pectinata by Danser. Therefore, N. pectinata is a nomen
ambiguum for _N. gymnamphora_ sensu Danser *and* _N. singalana_. With
the lectotypification above, N. pectinata can be used for the
Sumatran _N. gymnamphora_ population if it is considered distinct
from the Javanese one. This is done (formally correctly) in the
revision you discussed.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:32 PST