> 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?


ooooh, I see, I think that can be easily cleared up. They looked at
different herbarium specimens. Remember that: the two growers that in
the eighties introduced N. mirabilis "var. anamensis/smilesii" (a
simple red mirabilis, maybe from Thailand, that could be the source of
the mistake) in cultivation were germans. So maybe if Jan examined the
specimens in Germany he saw specimens given to the Botanic Garden by
these two growers. OR: the specimens in the Botanic Garden in Germany
were wrong and they were just N. mirabilis labelled N.
mirabilis "smilesii/anamensis". When the two growers in the eighties
visited the Botanic Garden they made the same mistake labelling their
plants the same way.
Martin wrote me that he READ the Hemsley description but it's not very
useful (see my website). But then he SAW the TYPE SPECIMEN that Hemsley
used to describe the new species N. smilesii. And he sais that type
specimen is the same plant that we call N.
anamensis/kampotiana/geoffrayi from Phu Kradung and other places.
Now, the only tragedy would come if Jan examined the same specimen that
Martin examined (as up to now we can just trust Martin, as that type
specimen hasn't been photographed...as soon as you do it, write me!!!)
and Jan thinks it's mirabilis while Martin thinks it's smilesii. But I
think that's impossible.
I can say that in 3 thai herbariums I found lots of nepenthes with
wrong names, then corrected by Martin. So it's very likely that
everything that comes from Thailand has been labelled, in some Bot.
Gardens, with "N. rafflesiana, thorelii, mirabilis" etc, without having
any idea of the true shape and origin of these species.

By the way, I saw your plant and it's definately N. smilesii. I read
Trent's answer and I was surprised about his doubts...but then I saw he
wrote it in 2004! Probably at the time he wasn't able to distinguish
smilesii, thorelii etc...now I'm sure he is :))))))))))
Marcello