Fig. 18. Nepenthes petiolata, fragment of ELMER 13705 in H. B.
.
Fig. 18. Nepenthes petiolata, fragment of ELMER 13705 in H. B.
Nepenthes petiolata DANS., spec. nova.
Icon. nostra 18.
Folia mediocria petiolata, lamina oblongo-lanceolata, nervis longitudinalibus utrinque 4, vagina caulis 2/3 amplectente ; ascidia rosularum et inferiora ignota ; ascidia superiora magna, parte inferiore anguste ovata, exalata, parte superiore cylindrica, alis 2 fimbriatis ; peristomio os versus acuminato, in collum elongato, applanato v. expanso, ad 15 mm lato, costis 1-2 mm distantibus. dentibus 2-5 x longioribus quam latis ; operculo ovato, facie inferiore in costae parte basali obtuse carinato ; inflorescentia &c. ignota ; indumentum parcum, in costa breviter villosum, in ascidiis stellatum.
When discussing N. Merrilliana I remarked, that N. surigaoensis probably is a synonym of this species, as far as the description and a part of the type specimens are concerned ; ELMER himself, however, having distributed under one and the same number 13705 (wrongly cited 12705 in the original publication) two kinds of plants, the not-described of which certainly belongs to quite another species. ELMER says (Leaflets, VIII, p. 2787): "in the eight specimens distributed, four were taken from a sterile plant and had considerably shorter leaves than those as here described and which may not belong to the same species". Now the specimen in H. B. does not agree at all with the original description of N. surigaoensis nor with that of N. Merrilliana, and thus probably belongs to the aberrant specimen mentioned by ELMER, it certainly is a Nepenthes not yet described until now. I have based on it a new species and named it after the most important difference with N. Merrilliana, viz. the petiolate leaves. Other differences with this species are: the lamina is oblong, broadest in or little above the middle, the pitcher is more cylindric, ventricose only in the lower part, the inner surface only glandular in the lower half, the ribs of the peristome much coarser. The only plant from the Netherlands Indies that reminds N. petiolata is the plant gathered by BINNENDIJK in Boeroe and provisionally enumerated under N. maxima. This plant differs from N. maxima by the large lower pitcher with a nearly round lid without appendages, but it differs from N. petiolata by the delicately ribbed peristome. As the material is very imperfect and in Boeroe and neighbouring islands only N. maxima and the quite different N. mirabilis have been found, I do not suppose, this plant of Boeroe to belong to N. petiolata ; its finely ribbed peristome reminds N. Merrilliana, but this species has sessile leaves.