Jump to content

N. faizaliana


Jimmie Hansen

Recommended Posts

Hi Steve,

That's a good shot. I should mention the N. fusca pitcher I posted is not a fully mature plant. When young the lids are much rounder and get narrow and triangular as they get older. Typical trait for the other forms of N. fusca also. The plant in your picture looks just like all of my N. fusca Sarawak (formally N. faizaliana). If the plants used by ABG to distribute seed are the same clones as yours then I can also say that the plant in my photo is a seedling from them.

In any event, they are very colorful and very robust plants and well worth growing.

My photo of N. faizaliana is not a mature plant either, while the one in the Exotica link is.

Hahaha I haven't looked that closely comparing N. fusca from different locations but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some minor differences. A taxonomists main concern is trying to determine if there are enough to warrant a subspecies or new species or such. I think I would go nuts if I was a taxonomist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to keep this topic going, but I needed to read, re-read, and think about it a bit.

If one reads the dichotomous key of Jebb & Cheek, the Nepenthes keys out to N. fusca , if the triangular pitcher lid is to be used as the single determining feature, but the plant keys to N. stenophylla, if the plant and leaf bases are used to determine the species.

According to Jebb & Cheek N. fusca has a shortly decurrent or amplexicaul leaf base. While N. stenophylla has sheathing or long decurrent leaf bases. If one were to take a mature specimen in flower, without pitchers, the species could be easily confused.

The photographic example of N. faizaliana that Tony posted does not show the leaf bases. The second photo. of mine shows the sheathing or long decurrent leaf bases, which would separate it from the possibility of being N. fusca .

Has anyone other than Matthew Jebb & Martin Cheek checked out the herbarium voucher specimens of J. H. Adams & Wilcock to see what the plants they used to formally describe N. faizaliana ?

Sorry for my confusion &

Thank you for your patience,

Steve Stewart

Florida, USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

Ive been following this thread,some nice points there,HAHAHA ive never thought about it before but looking at photos and such, Fusca Sarawak does look different to me aswell.As for working out its true origins will we ever know ?

Steve=Lovely plant,pitchers are of great size and colour,another 1 to add to the list :D

Bye for now julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BANNED hahaha

Thank you Chesara and Steve! :)

For some reason, some taxonomists fail to look at the entire plant to make the distinction between species. They can't look at the big picture, and so assume a hamata and tentaculata are the same species because the lids are similar. (? ? ? ?) OK, that never happened, but you get the point. :) I'm not puting anyone down, but I am saying that when you look at every bit of the morphology of the N. stenophylla, fusca, faizaliana, and fusca sarawak, you can tell that they all have very distinct, consistant features, warranting each a species or subspecies status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Tony, Joachim and all,

I posted this picture to better show the leaf base of the plant I have been calling Nepenthes faizalliana. This picture clearly shows the leaf base continuing in a sheath to a point below the eye of the previous leaf. The picture also shows the basal keel and tooth at the apex of the triangular hood.

In the picture I posted with hands holding the pitcher, there is another feature that would determine this plant something other than Nepenthes fusca. Danser clearly states in his description of N. fusca that "tendrils about 1 1/2 time as long as the lamina, always with a curl." Danser also shows this feature in the drawing of Nepenthes fusca on page 298 in both the lower and upper pitchers! The photograph I posted with hands, shows clearly upper pitchers, with tendrils that have no such curl. This is an unusual feature in itself, being as many if not most Nepenthes upper pitchers have tendrils which curl.

To me this indiscretion would at best indicate we have not been discussing three species, but rather four, or a now stable hybrid, and three species.

I realize I am working with horticultural material, but the unique qualities of this plant should not simply be overlooked. If the plant in question is common in the wild, a bit of research might be warrented.

Nfaizleafbase.JPG

Steve Stewart

Florida, USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

I think Danser worked mostly with herbarium material so he might only have seen a single or very few pressed plants at all. So it is not a big surprise for me to see the curling tendril in his descrition of N. fusca - but this feature is not stable in all other plants labeled as N. fusca I've seen in cultivation up to now! I also think this simple feature alone is not enough to distinguish two differnet species. The identification of the N. fusca Sarawk form was done by Ch'ien Lee who has very big experience in identification of plants in habit and he surely knows the variance of plants in nature very well. I am not an expert myself, so I follow his identification.

Cheers Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joachim,

I do hope that the Nepenthes fusca of Dansers era has not gone extinct! It could be very easy simply to dismiss certain important features of a species, and then lump all new material that comes close to the original, now rare and previously described species.

I am not a botanist or taxonomist, nor am I familiar with the wild populations of these plants, and therefore will not be able to determine, without doubt, what is, or is not a species.

Some features of Nepenthes fusca, N. faizaliana, N. stenophylla, and the plant material now being grown from Sarawak seems to look different, in my eyes and understanding, than the material described by the very skilled botanists and taxonomists of 100+ years ago. These descriptions, and the evidently poorly preserved herbarium material, are all anyone has today, to reliably determine these species.

I do not mean to offend Ch'ien Lee or anyone else by my questions, photographs and observations about this selection of species identification. I only wish to point out possibly important features of one of these plants, to help sort out a confusing historical record.

N. x hookeriana and N. x trichocarpa were considered species for many years, before growers hybridized the parents of these plants growing in their collections.

Thank you for all of your help and input,

Steve Stewart

Florida, USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...