N. clipeata

[Tony Paroubek]

Lots of good talk about N. clipeata clone clip-1.  So I am starting this thread to further the discussion.  I will post more pictures later but lets get it started with this one.  

Reply from Joachim:
Rob,

it is a bit difficult to make a judgement on the N. clipeata from this picture alone. The lower half of the pitcher in the foreground seems not to match the globose shape one would expect from a N. clipeata. Also the leaf base and the petiole of the newest leaf before the flower stalk does not look like N. clipeata from this angle. The colour of the petiole is not as red as one would expect from a plant grown under good conditions. (Of course I know, colours are normally not used to identify plants.)

More details from different parts of the plant would definitely help in identifying it. From first sight I would vote against a pure N. clipeata - it does look more like a complex hybrid to me.

Joachim

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Top view of a mature leaf:

 

[Borneo]

Joachim,

Thanks for your observations.  The lack of globose base to the pitcher is a good point.  However, although this plant is mature sexually, I think it isn't really dimensionally fully grown yet.

The origins of clone clip-1 are the seeds distributed from Munich Botanical Gardens.  The female parent was wild collected N. clipeata.  The flower spike was pollinated partially with N. clipeata pollen (from another wild collected plant) and also with (according to Andreas Wistuba) N. eymae pollen.  The controversy arises over the assertion that seeds were mixed up when sent out (something the Director of Munich Gardens angrily denies).  So, from the facts I believe we have so far, it's either pure N. clipeata, or N. clipeata x eymae, but is unlikely to be a complex hybrid.  I agree that the apparent differences between this plant and N. clipeata as we know it (and let's face it, we have few records other than taxanomic descriptions and Robert Kresanek and Ch'ien Lee's photos) may point to a complex hybrid.  However, I don't see that's possible from what I have been told so far of the history of this clone.

I've asked Andreas to take a look at this thread.  Let's see if he comes up with something.

 

[Joachim Danz]

Hi Tony and Rob,

quite interesting. You might have seen my plant which does originate from the same offspring but does look quite different. Even the leafes do match the shape and dimension given in Cheek & Jebb's taxonomic revision. Here some details of my plant:

Peristome and inner surface of lid:

Leaf:

Leaf base:

A total view of my plant and the pitchers can be found on my HP: http://home.arcor.de/j.danz/N_clipeata_f.html

Joachim

 

[neps]

First of all, nice plants, Tony, and thank you for sharing your
photos with us, Dustin!

As for the debate, I can tell you that I have three different
clones of this species, all from Andreas Wistuba. Moreover,
all of them exhibit the classic features of N. clipeata.
For this reason, I must say that I find the form of the pitcher
displayed in the imaged linked from Tony's first message
above to be a bit questionable perhaps. Also, is the pitcher
shown associated with the smaller plant on the left side of
the image, or is it from the plant on the right side, which has
been tied to a stake for support? Or, are these even the same
plant? Certainly, the large plant on the right side appears
to have highly peltate leaves.... Please clarify.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

I have multiple large plants of the Clip-1 clone. (and apparently 2 different types of plants as well) If you look closely at the picture you will see two large stems tied to stakes. These are different plants growing side by side. The pitcher showing is originating from the side shoot to the left of the pitcher. The pitcher originates from the leaf which is partly covering the front of the pitcher. I will take more pictures tomorrow of the two different clones I have. As well as look for differences between the larger plants. None of the plants I have are making leaves as large as they originally had. Unfortunately they also never had any pitchers on them when I got them. There is a large change in internode length and stem thickness in my care. Some of the plants have been developing pitchers in the air and others have been forming on with the pitchers resting on a solid surface. I will try and look for a pattern here also.

I understand and agree with all the discrepancies. I am as much confused as everyone else. From what I have seen in other N. clipeata hybrids it looks like none of them either.
Tony

 

[neps]

Hmmm. Thanks for the clarification, Tony. If I understand you
correctly, you are stating that both plants shown
are specimens of what you call the clip-1 clone.

While I have not seen this species in situ,
and am certainly not a taxonomist, every specimen of this
species which I've seen has bright red stems which are covered
with a fine, brown indumentum, which appears to be the case
with the plant on the left, unlike the plant on the right.
Thus, I would guess that these two are not the same clone.

If I've misinterpreted your last posting, please let me know.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Ah I see what you mean plant on the left vs on the right..

The 2 staked stems on the right are the old stems of 2 different plants. Both are showing new stems on the left of the pitcher. The lower one is a side branch from one of the stems on the right (the further back one). The new red stem left and above the pitcher showing is the top of the vine that is just to the right of the pitcher.

So all my large plants show the red color and brown hair. The red color seems to have faded with age or was never fully developed where they were growing previously. I have not grown them long enough to say it is from age. There does seem to be a distinctive line though from growth put on while in my care vs the previous owner. If it were not 10 below outside and dark I would go snap some pictures ;<
Tony

 

[nepenthes gracilis]

I took the pictures!

Thanks for compliments on my photography, getting the hang of the new camera finally!

BTW< um no expert on the clipeata but if it is the true deal or just really complex hybrid I still like it.

 

[Borneo]

All very interesting.  See what you've started N. gracilis!  

Here's a photo of a wild-collected plant that was shown in Tokyo during the June conference.  I post it because it does show the globose base to the pitcher that Joachim mentioned earlier and being wild-collected means that there is little doubt that it's the real thing:

 

[GEORGE-CP]

i have nothing to add to this topic as a plant but, i do have a question.

Rob, in the last post you mentioned that the plant was wild collected. is this aloud over there. also i thought that is plant was only found in one place from the reading that i have done. don't remember the location right off hand but, it was up a side of a mountain and a long wooden ladder to climb. from the pictures i have seen.

 

[Borneo]

George,

The Japanese guy who owns the plant apparently collected it from the wild during the 1970's which is well before CITES legislation came into force in Indonesia. Collection from the wild these days is probably against Indonesian local laws, and it's export from Indonesia certainly would be in contravention to CITES legislation.

 

[nepenthes gracilis]

About the very squat bottom on N. clipeata (similar to N. alata 'boschiana mimic' ) Tony's tiny offshoots in his greenhouse do have a rather fat bottom on them...maybe snap a picture of those little guys I was looking at Tony?

 

[Tony Paroubek]

More pics I took today:
View of the stem between previous growth before I obtained the plants vs growth in my care.  Stem is much thicker and colored and internodes much much shorter.

Close up of the stem

View of two pitchers growing from some basal shoots.  These two pitchers were growing on the same stem and are consecutive.  The one on the right with the more bulbous base is newer than the one on the left.  For some reason pitcher form seems to vary from pitcher to pitcher.

Sometimes there are remnants of wings and sometimes not.

The next two are of the glandular crest.  It was mentioned the possibility that N. eymae might be a parent if it is indeed a hybrid.
N. eymae crest

Clip-1 crest

Picture of the male flowers from Clip-1 clone.  They open green and get the reddish color after a few days.

 

[neps]

Tony,

After examining your pictures and comparing them with
my own plants, I am convinced that what you have really
is N. clipeata. My plants have the same coloration, and
the crest shown on your specimen is identical to
what mine exhibit.

Nonetheless, I find it interesting that the shape of the
pitchers of your plant is somewhat noncharacteristic
of the species, at least based upon what I've seen in
person and in photos.

 

[The Griffin]

Tony,

It looks like the real McCoy to me. Especially since you noted how the pitchers vary on a single plant. If we all compare one pitcher on yours to one on ours, then doubt can start to creep in. It's nice to know clone#1 is a male, for future reference.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Joachim Danz]

Hello,

thanks for the additional pictures Tony. Judging from the description of the pitchers in Flora Malesiana by Cheek and Jebb and all plants grown from wild collected cuttings I did see up to now, I still don't think this plant is a pure N. clipeata. The pitchers should be "..., lower third globose to obovoid,... , the upper 2/3 narrowly infundibuliform, 2.8-5cm wide at the base, chartaceous, flaring gradually to 5.2-9cm at the mouth..." - which none of the pitchers really does match well. And the pitcher lid: "..., the lower surface with a laterally flattened basal appendage to 8mm tall..", which would match the pictures from what I do understand. Another thing I don't remember seeing in pure N. clipeata is the green colour on the outer surface of the petiole.

But of course I am no expert in Nepenthes identification and so I have asked some Nepenthes specialists here in Germany, who have seen N. clipeata in habit, to have a look at this thread. Also I do think there were much more than two different parent plants used for the pollination of the female flower here in the Munich botanical garden. The plant did flower twice and different hybrids were produced, as far as I know.

Joachim

 

[Andreas Wistuba]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Borneo @ Jan. 14 2003,7:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thanks for your observations.  The lack of globose base to the pitcher is a good point.  However, although this plant is mature sexually, I think it isn't really dimensionally fully grown yet.

The origins of clone clip-1 are the seeds distributed from Munich Botanical Gardens.  The female parent was wild collected N. clipeata.  The flower spike was pollinated partially with N. clipeata pollen (from another wild collected plant) and also with (according to Andreas Wistuba) N. eymae pollen.  The controversy arises over the assertion that seeds were mixed up when sent out (something the Director of Munich Gardens angrily denies).  So, from the facts I believe we have so far, it's either pure N. clipeata, or N. clipeata x eymae, but is unlikely to be a complex hybrid.  I agree that the apparent differences between this plant and N. clipeata as we know it (and let's face it, we have few records other than taxanomic descriptions and Robert Kresanek and Ch'ien Lee's photos) may point to a complex hybrid.  However, I don't see that's possible from what I have been told so far of the history of this clone.

I've asked Andreas to take a look at this thread.  Let's see if he comes up with something.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi all,

I think concerning the pollen that was used on the Munich-plants there is quite some confusion and also a misunderstanding:
While in Munich several N. clipeata hybrids (among them N. clipeata x N. eymae) were crossed in the years before they had a male and a female N. clipeata flower at the same time at the last occasion (when male and female were floweing) apart from N. clipeata pollen, indeed pollen from _at least_ one previous hybrid, N. clipeata x N. eymae, was used, indeed leading to complex hybrids.

To be honest, I agree with Joachim, that Tony's plant is a complex hybrid almost certainly. Usually the young plants, a few centimeters across, already have the typical globose pitcher bases. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm quite certain about this.

Bye

Andreas

 

[The Griffin]

Oh man! Does that mean everyone who has clone #1 has this complex hybrid(it still looks nice, but..)?

Regards,

Joe

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Ah I see what you mean on the petioles Joachim, comparing to your picture. I will have to look closer at the other 'clip-1' plant and see how it compares as well.

Also some very good clarification Andreas on what occured at the Munich Botanical Gardens. If I understand correctly your thinking that what it may in fact be is N. clipeata x (N. clipeata x N. eymae). That would explain the very close resemblance to N. clipeata while also not being 'quite right'.

It is deffinately worthwhile to have so many knowledgable folks to compare clones and personal experience with. Thanks to everyone for your input!
Tony