Nepenthes edwardsiana or hamata ?

[Maiden]

For you guys, what is the nicest specie ?
Both are expensive to buy (hamata 40 or 100€, eddy 150€)

Eddy is great, but for me hamata have the greatest pitchers and overall looking. What do you think?

 

[BioZest]

I have absolutely no experience with growing these plants (although I hope to get some soon ), but I think I would say edwardsiana produces cooler pitchers.

 

[Whimgrinder]

N. edwardsiana is grossly overpriced IMO, and so I am waiting to acquire one. N. hamata is just as fantastic and much more affordable:

 

[corky]

hamata all the way,if you like it more and its more affordable ,also it grows much quicker than i have seen eddies grow(observing other peoples eddies ,i don't grow one)i think if you can manage nights 65 or below you will not have any trouble,mine sulked after a long period of warm nights,it still grew well but refused to pitcher for a few months,but if it pitchers for 9 months of the year in my uncontrolled conditions that is good enough for me,also my hamata clone does not seem to require very high humidity(would i am sure grow much better in high humidity,but good enough for me)

 

[Tower]

Hi maiden! Id def go for the hamata!

 

[mass]

I grow both species, and each are in a class of their own.
N. hamata is a must have for any serious grower.
But once you have an eddie, everyone knows you're a baller. lol
I say grow both.. but only because I can't choose one of my plants over the other.

 

[richjam1986]

I would go for hamata first. As mentioned, it is an easier species and grows more quickly (and you can get a starter plant that is bigger than 1/2 inch in diameter, unlike edwardsiana!)

Sounds like you're already leaning towards hamata anyway, so go for it!

 

[kevnep]

Hamata is next on my list just a shame I can't get one now

 

[Maiden]

Thanks for the fast replys guys!
I think hamata is the most wanted plant as i can read. I already have one from wistuba (a baby rosette, clone 1), and like whimgrinder said, edwardsiana is a lil bit overpriced ! (Pretty nice pictures by the way!)

 

[mato]

You should be able to kill two birds with one stone in a couple of years (edwardsiana x hamata pollination was successful).

 

[Tower]

You should be able to kill two birds with one stone in a couple of years (edwardsiana x hamata pollination was successful).

Oh well, that will be an amazing cross

 

[Jcal]

I like hamata because of the size. Most people do not have to room to grow those other plants out to their full potential. Hamata is much more house-able.

 

[killerplantsguy]

I like 'em both, but hamata is my pick. N. hamata has an abundance of very long lasting pitchers
and great leaf to pitcher size ratio, just to name a couple virtues...

 

[swords]

You should be able to kill two birds with one stone in a couple of years (edwardsiana x hamata pollination was successful).

Whoever is responsible for that will be beaten senseless with bags of money.

 

[dueoka]

You should be able to kill two birds with one stone in a couple of years (edwardsiana x hamata pollination was successful).

Can't wait! Where did you hear this? Who made the cross?

 

[Maiden]

Whoever is responsible for that will be beaten senseless with bags of money.

HAhaha Swords

I agree, that cross look interesting

 

[mylesG]

ah one of the crosses that iv been whining for

i think villosa tops em both by a smidgen

 

[Dexenthes]

You should be able to kill two birds with one stone in a couple of years (edwardsiana x hamata pollination was successful).

Whaaaaaat!!

I guess it was only a matter of time... Now you want to talk about a plant that will be grossly overpriced...


Anyway, the two plants are not exactly comparable. But hamata is generally cheaper, easier and quicker to grow, so there's that. But N. edwardsiana, when mature, is basically as awesome as a plant can get. (Save massive trees such as Sequoia, etc.)

 

[kevnep]

Actually the cross is hamata x edwardsiana

 

[Cthulhu138]

Maybe it's just my conditions but, I find edwardsiana to be easier and less finicky than hamata.