Recommended Posts

I have been growing the 'hairy hamata' since 2005 when I got them at a very small size

2005-12-23-205956.jpg

I was hooked by the gorgeous photos by Chi'en - surely this is the ultimate carnivorous plant with hair and teeth

montage-1.jpg

Now, 6 years later, with my largest plant flowering and with an upper I thought it would be interesting to review the considerable differences between it and the 'normal' type - under my conditions at least

Most strikingly, it is massively smaller. I think I can say that with confidence now it shows all the signs of maturity. The pitchers never got more than a few inches high and it is a slow grower, especially when young

2010-03-14-164709.jpg

In stark contrast to it's big brother a few feet away

P1020426.jpg

The lower pitchers are tubby, not elongated

2010-08-24-07h32m49.jpg

2008-10-12-120952.jpg

It abandoned a rosette and vined early, with a thin climbing stem

2009-07-15-174946.jpg

2010-03-14-164718.jpg

The upper pitchers (assuming mine is not intermediate or atypical anyway) have not developed the characteristic teeth of the normal form uppers, but have retained red colouration

P1020322.jpg

P1020320.jpg

P1020319.jpg

'Hairy'

2010-07-17-15h57m42.jpg

2010-07-17-15h57m34.jpg

'Normal'

Leaf attachments

Hairy type

2011-07-15-06h08m47.jpg

Normal Type

2011-07-15-06h09m00.jpg

Spur and Lid

Hairy Type

2011-07-15-06h05m47.jpg

2011-07-15-06h06m20.jpg

Normal Type

2007-07-28-160539.jpg

The flowers of my two plants are not the same sex, so I can't compare directly, but I include them for interest

2010-10-10-16h02m58.jpg

'Normal'

2011-02-25-15h17m48.jpg

'Hairy'

Now, I'm no taxonomist - but can we really consider this to be the same species, without even so much as varietal status?

Edited by osmosis
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the very explicative photos, I'm not a taxonomist either, but looking at them I immediately tried to see what possibilities we would have to consider these two as different taxa, and I honestly think that for what we know today (and considering how permissive we are towards describing new findings as new species), there's ample room to describe this as a new species. But I also think that, by now, the people who deal with Bornean taxonomy a bit better than us know this already :) Today we still don't know a LOT, but possibly in a close future (once they will have been described as different species) we might see these two as different subspecies anyway. Can you post a picture of the whole plant for the typical one, as you did for the hairy one? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one beautifully grown plant.

Personally, I think it's even more attractive than ordinary hamata- and these are surely the first pictures of a mature plant in cultivation. Very impressive!

Bring on the new generation of incredibly cool hybrids...

Surely it should end up a separate species... but I guess the issue is how well defined the geographic population is from standard hamata...

If this is a distinct population, then the morphological differences surely qualify it as a distinct species.

If the IC species are all separate, despite the fact that some of us can barely tell them apart, then this is surely a good candidate.

Now I've seen these photos, I can't wait for my penny-sized plant to do something....

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the IC species are all separate, despite the fact that some of us can barely tell them apart, then this is surely a good candidate.

I know I've seen this written many times, but I swear these IC species are not particularly similar. It is just the names that have been confused! The only plant that looks like N. thorelii is N. thorelii. Anyone can review the types (which were missing for years, but located recently) and clearly see what N. thorelii looks like. It doesn't look like N. kampotiana, N. bokorensis nor N. smilesii. Of these species only N. kampotiana looks very similar to N. suratensis and N. smilesii looks similar to N. kongkandana. If you can tell a gracilis from an albomarginata, you're up to being able to ID most IC species too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave thats awesome, superb plants and interesting growth and development chronology, i'm incredibly envious. For the life of me I cant get my hamatas normal and hairy to form uppers.

As we've discussed many times over the last six years the differences between the normal and hairy forms are like chalk and cheese. Even small plants without pitchers are possible to tell apart by their fragility and growth habits. What I have realised recently, with the introduction of more seed plants and newer locations is that there is so much more variabilty within this species and whether or not this variability is sufficient enough to recategorise some of these forms into new species is up to the experts. However given the similarities that exist between species of the Philippine archipelago, mira and mantal come to mind there may be an argument for it, or do we accept that there is more natural variation within a species than we appreciate and that we currently too trigger happy to identify a new species.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments. As regards the taxonomy - if I can paraphrase the response to my question it appears to be that even if A is clearly differrent to B, without knowing whether A intergrades into B it cannot be taxonomically described with necessary clarity

I can see the logic behind this. I wish I knew where this plant was actually collected. As far as I know it has never been revealed.

I have the seed grown hamata from BE and the seed grown Gunung Katopasa collection from Andreas. I look forward to comparing these too. I would be very interested to see any photographs of wild plants from either location.

BTW - The 'normal' form pictures are the 'old faithful' Gunung Lumut TC clone from Andreas. I'll try and take some whole plant photos - it's a bit difficult now it is large, in the corner of the greenhouse and entwined with everything else

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to be careful about making broad generalizations about this "hairy hamata" from looking at just this one individual plant; it could be a sport, or have some contamination from another species. We need to see more individuals of the entire population to make an informed evaluation. Notice that this plant is totally lacking in the tentacles on the lid that the "normal" N. hamata and N. tentaculata has, and the uppers makes me think of N. glabrata for some reason. Nice plant nonetheless. - Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very interesting the the flowers and the peristomes show different structure.

Normal hamata appears to been the result a specific set of changes these hairy plants didn't experience. On the hairy plants the peristome elements aren't hooked, or as hooked, as in hamata...

Link to post
Share on other sites

one question: is the photo with the green pitcher with unsorted teeths an upper pitcher of 'normal' hamata?

Yep it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the seed grown hamata from BE and the seed grown Gunung Katopasa collection from Andreas. I look forward to comparing these too. I would be very interested to see any photographs of wild plants from either location.

Dave

Hello Dave

Thanks for the interesting pics! For pics of the Kataposo-form:

My link

Button "Sulawesi"

They were also a bit hairy, see pics no 31 and no 32. This plant was also red and the theet almost similair to the hairy hamata.

Best regards

Urs

Edited by chimanta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting pics! For pics of the Kataposo-form:

My link

Button "Sulawesi"

They were also a bit hairy, see pics no 31 and no 32. This plant was also red and the theet almost similair to the hairy hamata.

Best regards

Urs

Thats really useful Urs, many thanks

Are 31 and 32 the only pics of Kataposo - which locations are the other pictures from (if you can share)

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi hamataphiles

Amazing photos of exceptionally well-grown specimens; thanks for showing these!

I too have thought for a long time that these two forms of hamata need some further investigation, but to confound the issue even further, I think that the as-yet un-named N. sp. Sulawesi really needs to be considered here too.

This plant is fairly common at several sites throughout Sulawesi, and appears to be a true, stable species in its own right. Quite what it represents is another matter, some think just a form of tentaculata, others the missing link between tentaculata and hamata. My plant has grown VERY quickly, flowering just 5 years from germination. I see that it shares the red stamen, just like the 'typical' form of hamata. I would like to see how these differ from tentaculata flowers (anyone?)

The photos shown below of the upper pitchers are the first ever taken. These have yet to be observed in the wild.

486Nepenthes_sp._Sulawesi.jpg

439Nepenthes_sp._Sulawesi.jpg

619Nepenthes_sp._Sulawesi.jpg

744Nepenthes_sp._Sulawesi.jpg

213Nepenthes_sp._Sulawesi.jpg

708Nepenthes_sp._Sulawesi.jpg

I appear to have chopped the lid out of the photos. The lower pitchers have the punk hair-do, just like typical hamata but these are entirely absent from the upper pitchers.

Thanks for looking

Andy

Edited by An D Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats really useful Urs, many thanks

Are 31 and 32 the only pics of Kataposo - which locations are the other pictures from (if you can share)

Many thanks

Hello Dave

All the hamatas on my hp are from the same Mountain, but the two pics mentionned reminded me the most on hairy hamata.

There was also quite some variation concerning colouration. Somethimes for example the pitchers where in different colours one example pic no 30 is on the side even red/white and front of the pitcher is brown/greenish. Leafes mostly dark (brown or red).

Peristome (theeth) looks also different to me (uppers and lowers) if you look at the Lumut form. Upper pitchers instead of the known pure green from the Lumut form for example red/white e.g. pics no 37, 48 and 49 but no 45/46 green with red again. However I don't know may they are all green on Lumut or just the ones in cultivation from Andreas, and MT I know.

Please excuse the disorder of numbers on my hp and species I will have to sort them again.

Andy: Your plant is most likely the same I have photographed as well and I named wrongly N. tentaculata on my hp. It occurs on high elevations on different Mountains (higher than for example hamata) on Sulawesi and will be publicated hopefully in the near future as a new species.

Best regards

Urs

My link

Edited by chimanta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Urs,

That species looks more like N. murudensis meets N. hamata than it does N. t....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urs,

as well as the speckled tentaculata pitchers with closely spaced teeth on their wings you also have pictures of green pitchers with strong widely spaced teeth on their wings.

Are these another species or a growth stage of the same plant?

LeeB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say thanks to those who have replied with information, observations and opinions - it has been fascinating reading and I feel a much better appreciation of the hamata 'affinity' group

Even the variation within the Katoposa ppopulation is extremely interesting

Does anyone have photos of other hamata female flowers?

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urs,

as well as the speckled tentaculata pitchers with closely spaced teeth on their wings you also have pictures of green pitchers with strong widely spaced teeth on their wings.

Are these another species or a growth stage of the same plant?

LeeB.

Hello LeeB

No, they are from a different mountain again all of the pics/plants 57 - 60 belong to the same habitat/place.

Whereas No 54 and 55 ( 54 and 55 = same plant) grow on another Mountain than 57 - 60. This plant has a similair peristome as glabrata does, which was growing a few meters beside, but pitchers speckled like hamata or the speckled tentaculata from MT but on the other hand wider leafes again, so maybe a cross? Maybe Dave Evans has an idea? But I don't want to start another thread here since this one is about the hairy hamata :-) and this plant deserves it.

cheers

Urs

Edited by chimanta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Urs,

I am having trouble matching the numbers with the plants on the screen.

But in any case it looks to me like you have more than one new species in the tentaculata group there.

It appears that it is forming a species flock in Sulawesi; so I suspect more related species will be found as more of the mountains on the different arms of Sulawesi are explored.

LeeB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Urs,

I am having trouble matching the numbers with the plants on the screen.

But in any case it looks to me like you have more than one new species in the tentaculata group there.

It appears that it is forming a species flock in Sulawesi; so I suspect more related species will be found as more of the mountains on the different arms of Sulawesi are explored.

LeeB.

N. tentaculata or more probably N. aff. tentaculata:

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/057.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/058.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/059.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/060.N_tentaculata.jpg

Are there any photos of lower pitchers?

Sp. Sulawesi:

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/056.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/061.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/062.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/063.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/064.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/065.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/066.N_tentaculata.jpg

sp. Sulawesi appears, to me, to be a version of N. hamata with reduced teeth and lack the tri-split elements--but the element are still much longer than other species. Over all, it has more features in common with N. hamata than others in the group--especially the flowers which are nearly the same if not identical.

This doesn't look quite right for either species:

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/054.N_tentaculata.jpg

http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/055.N_tentaculata.jpg

The peristome does appear to have some N. glabrata influence, but I'm not sure--the leaves aren't N. hamata, but then I'm not seeing any leaves of sp. Sulawesi plants for a good comparison, just leaves of normal hamata like here, http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/027.N_hamata.jpg and here, http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/026.N_hamata.jpg ...

Not sure what this is either: http://www.nepenthes.ch/pic_sulawesi/pics/019.N_glabrata.jpg

N. glabrata * N. maxima?

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to post
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.