N. Burkei

[flycatchers]

Hi

Does anyone have any photos of wistubas N. burkei? As it would be interesting to compare with BE one.

My own BE clone turned out alas to be a ventricosa- another one of their seed mixups I fear!

Still interested in getting a genuine N. burkei if anyone out there has a spare plant or cutting.

cheers

bill

[Phil Green]

I would get some 'second' opinions on that Bill.

I'm not very familiar with these two very similar species. But to my eye (and I could easily be wrong), and looking closely at the pic's and description in Stewarts book, that looks more like burkei than ventricosa.

Got any pic's of the leaves and lower pitchers ?

Here's a pic of mine (lower pitcher) which originates from BE

Edited November 24, 2009 by Phil Green

[flycatchers]

I did show Rob the photo who also said it was ventricosa- but not a form they sell !- Quote " The thing is that the plant in your photo is N. ventricosa and a very plain one at that I'm afraid. In this case, I am really certain that the plant didn't originate in our nurseries since we have never had a N. ventricosa looking even remotely like that" So the mystery continues...

I would have been happy if it had ever looked like your specimen Phil :)

bill

[gardenofeden]

here are some pics from Ch'ien Lee, very different looking plant (even to yours Phil!)

http://www.wildborneo.com.my/photo.php?f=c...amp;p=5&i=2

http://www.wildborneo.com.my/photo.php?f=c...mp;p=8&i=14

[rsivertsen]

Yeah, N. ventricosa has a wide distribution in Luzon, the entire length of the island, ranging from north to south and each of those small populations has a slightly different form. I was told by some Japanese authorities that some were hybrid populations with N. alata, and possibly some other species, which may even be extinct now. The ones from northern Luzon, around Ilocos, Apayao, Cordillera and the Cagayan Valley have some that resemble the "porcelain form", which produces pitchers that can get to 12 inches in length. Some of the "red forms" have a peristome that comes together and rides up towards the lid. These populations also seem to produce smaller pitchers, smaller peristomes and the plants as a whole, and are often less ventricose.

Since then, many people who have studied these plants in the wild have informed me that it is more likely that they just evolved differently, adapting to the local environment by genetic drift rather than from gene pool contamination. But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some populations of N. ventricosa in Luzon have some gene pool contamination from N. burkei and/or something else; N. sibuyanensis is also another very closely related species.

N. burkei is only reported to grow on the neighboring island of Mindoro, particularly on Mount Halcon where it's known to hybridize with N. alata; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepenthes_burkei

Their pitchers have a more oblique angle of their peristome and has more red spots on the outside of the pitcher than N. ventricosa.

- Rich

Edited November 24, 2009 by rsivertsen

[manders]

Here's my BE burkei, there are some differences to Chien Lee's photos...

Edited November 24, 2009 by manders

[Phil Green]

Bill, I guess you didn't get it directly from BE. So pehaps the person you got it from got it mixed up.

But from what I've read & seen, I would have expected more of a waist for a 'pure' ventricosa.

[rsivertsen]

The peristome on N. ventricosa is totally different than N. burkei. The "porcelain form" seems to exemplify this trait best. Their leaves are also different being lanceolate, about an inch wide and about a foot long, and the stem attachment is without a petiole (sessile); N. burkei, and other species show different characteristics in these features. - Rich

Edited November 25, 2009 by rsivertsen

[Dave Evans]

Hello Bill,

This appears to be a case of, once again, someone finding a different N. ventricosa population and thinking, by subtraction I suppose, "...if it doesn't look like the other N. ventricosa I've seen before, it must be N. burkei!" syndrome we have all witnessed over the years.

I'm keeping my N. burkei clones for now, until they flower and produce seed anyway.

[Phil Green]

Rich, your's nicely shows the bulbous lower section expected in ventricosa. Which is what make me wonder if Bill's is actually a hybrid.

But absolutely, as Dave say's - just because it doesn't look like a 'typical' example doesn't automatically mean something is a hybrid or different species.

[christerb]

Bill, I guess you didn't get it directly from BE. So pehaps the person you got it from got it mixed up.

Hi Phil,

Sorry, I'm jumping in here, but I have got one such plant too, and first I suspected that the problem might have been at the importer too. However, Bill and I have been in contact, and have confirmed that our plants came via different sources. Also, at least two growers in the US have received what was supposed to be BE's seed-grown N. burkei, and they also look different from the true species. When I started to wonder about the identity of my plant, the first thing that popped up in my mind was that it might be a natural hybrid, especially since N. alata can be found on Mt Halcon. However I can't say that the photos of this suspected hybrid looks similar to the ones we have. Neither Chi'en Lee, nor Stewart McPherson has reported of anything else growing there, so I'm leaning to that there has been some kind of mix-up at BE. I would be happy if someone would prove me wrong. Here are some old photos of the pitchers on my plant. In my eyes it doesn't look like a pure N. ventricosa. If it is second-third generation from cultivated plants you'll never know what is in it, it may even have some N. burkei in its ancestry.

The first pitcher does look quite similar to the one pictured in a thread here about a visit to Kew Gardens, coincidently this plant is incorrectly labeled as N. burkei. It does also have the pronounced neck when seen in profile. I don't really know what to make of my plant, sometimes it does look more ventricosa like (first pitcher), and sometimes not. The pale pitcher does have a slender look, unlike most ventricosa I have seen.

As a side note I can report that my problem with discolored leaves on my true N. burkei clone seems to have disappeared after changing the soil, the last two leaves are nice and green, thanks for the help.

Regards,

Christer

[manders]

Compared to Chien Lees photos all of the plants shown in this thread look like hybrids. Has anyone got a photo of a real burkei?

[Sockhom]

Hello,

I think Phil and Mark's plant are the true species. They are just not mature yet.

I could be wrong. It's just a feeling and I have no proof since we can't really use taxonomic features based on their pictures and Ch'ien's.

Nepenthes in the wild can be quite variable and we're often used to have one single "image" of a species.

Just my 2 cents.

François.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Sockhom

[christerb]

Hi,

I agree with François, that those two look like the real thing, Phil's seems to be a bit smaller. They at least look similar to the ones pictured in Stewart book. When it comes to Chi'en´s photos, I wonder if the specimens might be a bit atypical. This was brought up in a topic on another forum some time ago. The peristome ribs are much more distinct than on any other pitcher I have seen, and the plant seems to have very wide leaves. However, although not the norm, Stewart mentions that specimens may have such leaves. I could also be that they found different populations on Mt. Halcon.

Regards,

Christer

[gardenofeden]

but if they are indistinguishable from the natural variation in ventricosa, are they not just...ventricosa? Is burkei a distinct species?

[Sockhom]

but if they are indistinguishable from the natural variation in ventricosa, are they not just...ventricosa? Is burkei a distinct species?

It is Stephen.

Think of Sarracenia purpurea and Sarracenia rosea... Just kidding ;-))

Seriously they are very closely related. It seems that they have constant differences such as pitcher morphology (burkei is more cylindrical for instance) and the number of longitudinal nerves (3/4 for burkei).

François.

[Dave Evans]

N. burkei is a "good species" it does fall outside of the variation displayed by N. ventricosa.

Many a time, clones of N. ventricosa which grow pitchers that are less waisted would be mislabeled "N. burkei". This is what happened to the plant at Kew.

The photos from Christer do not depict N. burkei.

The other photos from Phil and Manders do depict N. burkei and are a match to Ch'ien C. Lee's photos. The difference is, the plants depicted in Ch'ien's photos are larger and fully mature.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Dave Evans

[marcello catalano]

Indeed, the few times that I've seen photos of the real burkei (here in the pictures 2 and 3), I had no doubt it was a completely different thing. I can't believe it can be mistaken with any form of ventricosa.

[loligo1964]

Hi

Does anyone have any photos of wistubas N. burkei? As it would be interesting to compare with BE one.

My own BE clone turned out alas to be a ventricosa- another one of their seed mixups I fear!

Still interested in getting a genuine N. burkei if anyone out there has a spare plant or cutting.

cheers

bill

I agree with a few of the others in stating that it looks like your Nepenthes is indeed N. burkei. There is that already-stated wide variation in their pitcher appearance and every N. ventricosa that I have ever had, bore the distinct constricted "waist" which is missing in yours . . .

[Dave Evans]

Hey Bill,

I have to disagree with Loligo, your plant that is supposed to be from BE is not N. burkei, but it doesn't really look like N. ventricosa either. However, it does look more like N. ventricosa than it does N. burkei. Can we see what the whole plant looks like? Maybe a close up of some of the leaves?

Why are folks still confusing these two species? And continuing to focus on the degree of waisting on the pitchers? The leaves and the peristomes of these two species are very distinct. Consider N. sibuyanensis. It has a peristome which is much more similar to the shape of the peristome of N. ventricosa--neither species has a peristome like that of N. burkei and they are its closest relatives. Each of these three species has different leaves, however.

Some of these less clear plants probably represent hybrids with N. alata. N. ventricosa with weak waisting on the pitchers might or could be N. ventricosa * (N. ventricosa * N. alata). While this plant maybe very rare in nature, people are drawn to collect "the most different" plants they find so it could be easier to find the hybrid in cultivation than it is to find it in the wild. There really isn't any reason to think, "well if the pitchers are less waisted, it probably is N. burkei"--this isn't what makes them different species it is just a hint not a definition. Does the plant have N. burkei leaves with multiple veins?

[loligo1964]

On page 675 (Figure 265) of McPherson's Pitcher Plants of the Old World, Volume Two, there is a photo with the following caption, "a variant of N. burkei exhibiting minimal red colouration." A similar image is available at the Redfern Natural History website: http://www.redfernnaturalhistory.com/showp...thes_burkei/505

Likes a helluva lot like your plant . . .

[Dave Evans]

...I didn't notice the plant we are talking about is making upper pitchers... But I'd still be interested in seeing more of the plant.

Bill has your plant produced lower pitchers shaped like those on my plants?

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dpevans/Nepenthes/N_burkei.htm

They are still too small to see the difference in the leaves.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Dave Evans

[marcello catalano]

my 2 cents here too :)

Stewart's plant is clearly not ventricosa, not because it's in the page's title, but just looking at the photo and at the pitchers in the background too.

Dave's plant is also clearly not ventricosa.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with Cheek in 2001, about the differences between these two:

"Well - he said - basically for this reason, and this other reason, and this other reason (sorry, I forgot his precise arguments about that!), if it has red pitchers, then it's burkei, if it has whitish-green pitchers it's ventricosa". In fact, all red ventricosas at Kew are labelled burkei!!! :)))

A few years later, a very famous expert told me "that's complete bulls..t! The color has nothing to do with it! These are two completely different species, just look at the photos of two right labelled specimens and you'll see that!".

[Dave Evans]

Stewart's plant is clearly not ventricosa, not because it's in the page's title, but just looking at the photo and at the pitchers in the background too.

Dave's plant is also clearly not ventricosa.

Right, the lid and the back of the peristome are much higher than the front of the peristome, while the peristome of N. ventricosa is much flatter, in some clones completely flat. Also, lower pitchers of N. burkei have wings, while the lower pitchers of N. ventricosa do not. You'll only see wings on the pitchers of seedling N. ventricosa, like how we see elements on the lids of baby N. rafflesiana. Frankly, N. burkei seems more similar to N. insignis than it is N. ventricosa.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with Cheek in 2001, about the differences between these two:

"Well - he said - basically for this reason, and this other reason, and this other reason (sorry, I forgot his precise arguments about that!), if it has red pitchers, then it's burkei, if it has whitish-green pitchers it's ventricosa". In fact, all red ventricosas at Kew are labelled burkei!!! :)))

Well, I do believe him, since Kew never had N. burkei but a bunch of mislabeled N. ventricosa and other species. I rather doubt he was convinced that the the two real species were the same.

A few years later, a very famous expert told me "that's complete bulls..t! The color has nothing to do with it! These are two completely different species, just look at the photos of two right labelled specimens and you'll see that!".

Oh yeah. You can tell this just by reading the descriptions too.

[christerb]

Hi,

Reading Flora Malesiana 2001; Jebb/Cheek uses three characteristics to distinguish between the two, all relating to the pitcher shape. N. ventricosa having more constricted waist, the whitish color of the uppers, and the lid being much smaller than the pitcher mouth. After reading about Marcello's discussion with Cheek this puts it in different light though.

Looking at the leaves I don't think that we have much to go with to differentiate the two, oblanceolate-oblong shape of the lamina on N. burkei, versus oblanceolate-narrowly oblong on N. ventricosa according to Jebb/Cheek. When comparing with 'Pitcher Plants of the Old World' (McPherson) it gets even more complicated. There it is stated that both have linear leaves, but they can be wider on N. burkei.

and the number of longitudinal nerves (3/4 for burkei).

François, is that taken from Danser's work, or? In the publication that I have access to Jebb/Cheeks states that N. burkei have 4 nerves on each side, and N. ventricosa 3-6. Last year when trying to count the longitudinal nerves on my plant I got it to four, but I might have to check again to be sure.

The big decider for me is the angle of the pitcher mouth, which is steeper on N. burkei. N. ventricosa have more horizontal shape, especially when comparing with forms like the "porcelain" or "alba", which in my eyes seem to be close to the type form. However, looking at photos of other N. ventricosa it seems that some forms have an angled mouth as well. I don't give much thought about specimens that originate from plants bred in cultivation, since they might not even be pure species. But looking at the photos of the Mt Mayon form from Stewart's book this one seem to differ from the type form, having angled mouth, and rather large lids. There is also the Madja-as (Panay) form which is said to have similarities to N. burkei. However from what I have seen, neither of those varieties have pitcher mouths that are as slanted as the ones on N. burkei.

Something that is mentioned also is the width of the peristome, which is supposed to be the same front to back on N. ventricosa, while it gets wider further back on N. burkei. This seems to correspond well in most cases. However the pale pitchers in Stewart's book (and the link above) doesn't fit in that respect, but I wonder if it is because they are true upper pitchers. Several years ago I remember Chi'en posting photos of lower and upper pitchers of N. burkei on a another forum, and the upper looked quite different, being slimmer, definitely not as spectacular as the lowers. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find those photos again.

So the question is, what are these unidentified plants - allegedly - from Mt Halcon. Since there have been at least two expeditions there - with knowledgeable people - I would expect that if anything else grows there, they would have picked up on that. It is for that reason I think that a simple labeling mix-up (by originator of the plants) seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Regards,

Christer