Dear Marcello and Jan,


So sorry, I switched your names in my head!

> My name is Marcello, not Marco :)))))
>
> I think you can get a good idea of the thorelii
> problem as it is at the moment (Your plants, Tom's
> plants, Nong's "tigers" etc) reading the page on
> my nepenthesofthailand.com about "Trat", in
> the "centre" map. There I explain some personal
> thoughts about what seems to be the situation with
> the 3-4 plants that could be considered N. thorelii.
>
> The whole problem you say about the herbarium sheet of
> N. mirabilis/anamensis is, as you say, what I explain in
> my site's chapter "a long research", repeating Cheek's
> "theory", which actually I consider to be the only true one.
> If you read my "smilesii chronology", that makes things even easier.

Right, I read all that material. However, the problem is that when I
spoke to Dr. Jan Schlauer, he mentions that when he examined specimens
with the name _Nepenthes smilesii_ on them, he was certain he was looking
at material of _Nepenthes mirabilis_. My question is, what specimens did
he look at? The same as Martin Cheek?

How could Martin Cheek confirm a new species on the same sheet paper Jan
only sees _N. mirabilis_ on? He basically said he can only consolidate
_N. kampotiana, N. geofiyra (sp?)_ into _N. anamensis_, and that is the
end of the line, while _N. smilesii_ is a form of _N. mirabilis_. He then
looked at my _N. kampotiana_ and said it is surely _N. anamensis_ if the
location data correct. Since _N. mirabilis_ and _N. anamensis_ are very
different looking plants, even when pressed and dried, I can't understand
why Martin Cheek and Jan Schlauer do not seem to agree on the
idenification of the type(?) specimen...

This why I say a good quality photograph, which can reveal many details of
this specimen is needed.


Good growing,
Dave Evans