Hi Dave!

> 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.


As far as I know Schlauer only used to say that most
of the plants in the collections around the world that
are labelled N. anamensis were infact N. mirabilis.
And it was like that until the problem came out once
again with my website :))) Since then I've the
impression that mirabilis are now called mirabilis
(rarely mirabilis var. anamensis or var. smilesii) and
smilesii (as I call that species) are called anamensis
or smilesii. So the situation is much better now:)
When a few years ago I asked Schlauer what the real
anamensis looked like, he said "a hybrid between
gracilis and hirsuta, and difficult to distinguish
from one of these". I suspect that at the time not
even Schlauer was completely sure that the plant
called everywhere "thorelii" was in fact the
fantomatic "anamensis". Maybe he had only seen dry
specimens of anamensis. And he also knew that a plant
called "smilesii" had been considered by Danser as a
mere form of mirabilis. But we don't know what Danser
was looking at, and if maybe he made a mistake.
Only Cheek made much deeper studies during those years
about these species (saying in his book that
"smilesii, thorelii and anamensis are related and they
have nothing to do with mirabilis, despite what Danser
said" and later "smilesii and anamensis are the same
thing (pers. comm)"), studies that have never been
officially pubblished, also because - I think - they
are a much bigger thing for us growers than for
taxonomists!
I think Cheek will just pubblish a new thai species
(sp. "Chanà", what we call "giant thorelii"), that is
anyway something "bigger" than saying
"here I officially say that what you were growing as
thorelii is infact smilesii, while anamensis is an
invalid name because the name smilesii came earlier".
He corrected all the specimens at Bangkok, at that's
more than enough for that matter! :)
After all, if you were a botanist, would you wait
years to pubblish an article to say what I said in the
above 3 lines? :))))
About the hybrid, as a personal opinion I say that N.
mirabilis is very unlikely growing in the same habitat
of N. smilesii, plus they have completely different
leaves, and Cheek - who saw MANY smilesii specimens -
would have been surely able to spot the strange leaves
of a hybrid like that among the other thai smilesii.

A problem like that recently happened with
pilosa/chaniana. But Chien Lee or Charles Clarke are
people who much more easily appear in forums and
magazines to reveal their discoveries month after
month (and that's great!!!), while Cheek is not. For
what I could see in these years, you will never ear
from him for ages :)))) until when he will pubblish a
full review of all thai species, maybe in the Kew
Bulletin, and he will make all these matters and
corrections MORE than official!! When? 10, 20, 50
years maybe :))) In the year 2001, during my visit at
the Kew herbarium, he said he had been asked to
revisit the flora of South Africa. Now, he also said
that Nepenthes were his favourite topic, but you see
that not much time is left for that when you have to
review the FLORA OF SOUTH AFRICA !!!! :)))))


> 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...


You are right on that! I think Schlauer, as we are
talking about these two professionists, would do the
same, as it's the most scientific thing to do. The
correction "smilesii/anamensis" hasn't been officially
pubblished. The most official pubblication of that
matter is in my website, where I wrote exactly
Martin's words taking them from an email he sent me.
Maybe that matter will never be pubblished. I'm not a
scientist, but I'm afraid that until then we'll only
be able to just trust Martin's words. Even if Schlauer
sees the same specimen and he agrees with Martin, we
will still be "forced" to call that plant anamensis,
even if Schlauer and Cheek UNOFFICIALLY say the
contrary. I THINK, but I'm not sure about that. You
should ask Schlauer about that: if anybody knows about
a mistake for years, but the correction hasn't been
pubblished yet, are we all allowed to freely be wrong
:)))??? What's the minimum "official appearence"
required to "officially" make a simple correction like
that? is a pubblic email in a pubblic forum enough??
or maybe a speech in a conference...? I don't know...



>
> 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...

N. smilesii had been pubblished in 1895. The plant
found in 1895 has been seen by Cheek, who sais it
clearly is smilesii/anamensis and not mirabilis for
sure.
N. anamensis, kampotiana and geoffray were described
more than 10 years after smilesii.
I don't remember when Danser said smilesii was a form
of mirabilis (but Cheek OFFICIALLY said the contrary
in his book), AFTER 1895 for sure, but you should
check the "smilesii chronology" on my website.
For sure it was AFTER 1980 that some german growers
started calling their red mirabilis with the names
"var. smilesii" and "var. anamensis", I don't know
exactly why. That made the confusion worse. Maybe the
german growers knew about names like smilesii and
anamensis as coming from Indochina, and when they
received mirabilis plants from that area, they
considered Danser's book and they just added the name
smilesii/anamensis to mirabilis plants coming from
that area.
But that's not important, as it's a fact that the word
"smilesii" came much earlier. We can only trust
Cheeks's words or not, or - as we said before - be
careful and still use the name anamensis.
I hope my english was not too bad on such a difficult
argument!
Marcello





________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091