TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
N. fallax
- Thread starter brisco225
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fallax nepenthes stenophylla
Say what? The ICPS Carnivorous Plant Database lists N. fallax (G.Beck) and N. stenophylla (Mast.) as different species.[b said:
See: http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi
The name conversion is going quite slow on that. Wistuba is adamant about it being N. fallax (does not mention N. stenophylla anymore, I think, on his site), and the only other site I can think of that mentions it is Jeff Shafer's site. He has it listed as N. stenophylla, but mentions it's synonomous with N. fallax. Where this will end up, who knows?
Regards,
Joe
Regards,
Joe
I know that Malensiana Tropicals sells a N. stenophylla. The interesting thing is the gentleman I purchased my nepenthes from sold me both a N. fallax and a N. stenophylla. He was/is under the impression they are two seperate plants. Whatever the truth is, I have no idea. I can not access the database at work, so I will wait until I get home. Anyone else have an opionion?
If you look at
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/Nepenthes.html
you will find links to 22 different Web sites that have photos of N. stenophylla and 12 different Web sites that have photos of N. fallax. If these are indeed the same species, there are a bunch of folks that will need to revise the names on their collections.
Of course, the lumpers and the splitters will still have their opinions.
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/Nepenthes.html
you will find links to 22 different Web sites that have photos of N. stenophylla and 12 different Web sites that have photos of N. fallax. If these are indeed the same species, there are a bunch of folks that will need to revise the names on their collections.
Of course, the lumpers and the splitters will still have their opinions.
nepenthes gracilis
Nepenthes Specialist
My uderstanding of the issue is that there are basically two opinions on this topic. They are:
1. "N. stenophylla" is the plant that everyone thinks it is (i.e. photos and descriptions in all recent books, as well as all the plants which are commonly cultivated under this name).
2. "N. stenophylla" applies to a completely different unknown plant, and thus all the plants that are currently known as N. stenophylla should instead be regarded as N. fallax (which is the next oldest description for this taxa).
The issue has arisen because the type specimen of N. stenophylla consists of a rather poorly cultivated plant with only intermediate pitchers, making it difficult to determine its actual identity. The plant was grown by the famous nursery Veitch & Sons in the late 1800's and supposedly originated from Borneo. I haven't seen the specimen myself, but as I'm sure any of the Nepenthes growers out there on the Forum will agree to, a poorly grown Nep can look anything ranging from another species to something the cat dragged home. Some who have seen the type of N. stenophylla say that it must be a completely different species (possibly an unknown one), and thus the name cannot apply to the plants we currently know as N. stenophylla (hence the use of N. fallax).
There is no doubt about the identity of N. fallax as it clearly represents the same taxa that is commonly grown by horticulturalists. However, since the description of N. fallax was published five years after N. stenophylla, anyone who does agree that they are the same species must therefore regard N. fallax as a synonym and stick with the name N. stenophylla.
Since I haven't seen the N. stenophylla specimen, I cannot provide any conclusive argument one way or the other. However, in my opinion I would continue to regard all N. stenophylla under the definition provided by Danser (thus applying to all plants in cultivation) on the following reasoning:
1. It is certainly very undesirable to change the name of such a well-known species (after all no conclusive evidence has yet been presented that the type specimen represents a different species).
2. In all probability the type specimen is the same as what we regard N. stenophylla because what else could they have possibly collected in the late 1800's in Borneo? Let's face it, we have already scoured the majority of accessible mountains in northern Borneo, and the species from this region are fairly well known. N. stenophylla is quite common here, growing in abundance in many places from central Sarawak to Kinabalu. In the 1800's they had much poorer access than we do now and I think it very unlikely that they could have found something then that we still to this day have not seen after all this exploration. The recently described species N. platychila and N. vogelii have lower pitchers that at a stretch might be confused with N. stenophylla, but these are both very rare species that only grow in remote areas.
3. In their revision for Flora Malesiana, Jebb & Cheek have proposed an epitype for N. stenophylla (S 50879) composed of a collection made from Batu Lawi in Sarawak (the typical form) "in order to buttress the application of the name N. stenophylla to this species..."
In addition, Jebb & Cheek state that they have seen a plate published a few years after the description of N. stenophylla which illustrates the distinctive upper pitchers and supposedly was made from plants of the same origin.
In any case, the only thing most hobbyists need to know is that within the horticultural trade, all plants which are currently called N. stenophylla and N. fallax represent the same taxa.
If one of the English members out there on the Forum gets the chance to visit the Kew Herbarium, it would be great if they could take a good digital photograph of the enigmatic N. stenophylla specimen and post it here.
Jeremy wrote:
>I know that Malensiana Tropicals sells a N. stenophylla.
>The interesting thing is the gentleman I purchased my nepenthes
>from sold me both a N. fallax and a N. stenophylla. He was/is
>under the impression they are two seperate plants. Whatever the
>truth is, I have no idea. I can not access the database at work,
>so I will wait until I get home. Anyone else have an opionion?
As far as I know Malesiana Tropicals has never sold or marketed plants under the name of N. fallax. Perhaps there was confusion with N. faizaliana (which they have sold) instead, as that is definitely distinct from N. stenophylla.
Best regards,
Ch'ien
1. "N. stenophylla" is the plant that everyone thinks it is (i.e. photos and descriptions in all recent books, as well as all the plants which are commonly cultivated under this name).
2. "N. stenophylla" applies to a completely different unknown plant, and thus all the plants that are currently known as N. stenophylla should instead be regarded as N. fallax (which is the next oldest description for this taxa).
The issue has arisen because the type specimen of N. stenophylla consists of a rather poorly cultivated plant with only intermediate pitchers, making it difficult to determine its actual identity. The plant was grown by the famous nursery Veitch & Sons in the late 1800's and supposedly originated from Borneo. I haven't seen the specimen myself, but as I'm sure any of the Nepenthes growers out there on the Forum will agree to, a poorly grown Nep can look anything ranging from another species to something the cat dragged home. Some who have seen the type of N. stenophylla say that it must be a completely different species (possibly an unknown one), and thus the name cannot apply to the plants we currently know as N. stenophylla (hence the use of N. fallax).
There is no doubt about the identity of N. fallax as it clearly represents the same taxa that is commonly grown by horticulturalists. However, since the description of N. fallax was published five years after N. stenophylla, anyone who does agree that they are the same species must therefore regard N. fallax as a synonym and stick with the name N. stenophylla.
Since I haven't seen the N. stenophylla specimen, I cannot provide any conclusive argument one way or the other. However, in my opinion I would continue to regard all N. stenophylla under the definition provided by Danser (thus applying to all plants in cultivation) on the following reasoning:
1. It is certainly very undesirable to change the name of such a well-known species (after all no conclusive evidence has yet been presented that the type specimen represents a different species).
2. In all probability the type specimen is the same as what we regard N. stenophylla because what else could they have possibly collected in the late 1800's in Borneo? Let's face it, we have already scoured the majority of accessible mountains in northern Borneo, and the species from this region are fairly well known. N. stenophylla is quite common here, growing in abundance in many places from central Sarawak to Kinabalu. In the 1800's they had much poorer access than we do now and I think it very unlikely that they could have found something then that we still to this day have not seen after all this exploration. The recently described species N. platychila and N. vogelii have lower pitchers that at a stretch might be confused with N. stenophylla, but these are both very rare species that only grow in remote areas.
3. In their revision for Flora Malesiana, Jebb & Cheek have proposed an epitype for N. stenophylla (S 50879) composed of a collection made from Batu Lawi in Sarawak (the typical form) "in order to buttress the application of the name N. stenophylla to this species..."
In addition, Jebb & Cheek state that they have seen a plate published a few years after the description of N. stenophylla which illustrates the distinctive upper pitchers and supposedly was made from plants of the same origin.
In any case, the only thing most hobbyists need to know is that within the horticultural trade, all plants which are currently called N. stenophylla and N. fallax represent the same taxa.
If one of the English members out there on the Forum gets the chance to visit the Kew Herbarium, it would be great if they could take a good digital photograph of the enigmatic N. stenophylla specimen and post it here.
Jeremy wrote:
>I know that Malensiana Tropicals sells a N. stenophylla.
>The interesting thing is the gentleman I purchased my nepenthes
>from sold me both a N. fallax and a N. stenophylla. He was/is
>under the impression they are two seperate plants. Whatever the
>truth is, I have no idea. I can not access the database at work,
>so I will wait until I get home. Anyone else have an opionion?
As far as I know Malesiana Tropicals has never sold or marketed plants under the name of N. fallax. Perhaps there was confusion with N. faizaliana (which they have sold) instead, as that is definitely distinct from N. stenophylla.
Best regards,
Ch'ien
