Hello Marcello,


There is an alternate theory I thought of a couple of weeks ago and have
been wanting to post: The "reason" Dr. Schlauer says the type specimen for
_Nepenthes smilesii_ is a _N. mirabilis_ and Dr. Cheek says it is an
original species is because they are both correct.

Perhaps what is on the sheet is actually _N. anamensis * N. mirabilis_. I
suspect this could confuse the best botanists in the world.

I am using the name _N. anamensis_ for my plants, as least until the
identity of the type for _N. smilesii_ can be truly confirmed...

I am not sure about this... Did the creation of the name _N. mirabilis
smilesii_ a few years before, make it impossible to use the name _N.
smilesii_ for a different plant? If so, _N. smilesii_ would always refer
back to _N. mirabilis_, but I am not clear on some of the finer points of
taxonomy...


Happy CP hunting,
Dave Evans


-----Original Message-----
From: cp-bounces@... On Behalf Of marcello catalano
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:26 PM

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 labeled, 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 is definitely 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