Good Evening Marcello,


Well, if the plant on the sheet is full sized and mature, it should be
obvious. But if it is a smaller, immature plant the identity could be
obscure... Both _N. anamensis_ and _N. mirabilis_ have very thin leaves, as
compared to most other _Nepenthes_ species. Often, plants of various
species will show fimbriate margins on the leaves when immature--this is not
always a fool-proof method of telling a plant apart from _N. mirabilis_.
Also, _N. mirabilis_ is extremely variable and it can be found in
intermediate, and even rarely in highland altitudes, so there is not much
reason to think such a hybrid would be impossible. Also, doesn't _N.
anamensis_ occur in lowland areas? No one knows where "Baw Saw Kawng" is
located.

I agree; many people have become better informed thanks to Dr. Cheek's, Dr.
Schlauer's and your efforts to explain what to look for, especially
regarding mislabeled _N. mirabilis_ which many people were calling _N.
anamensis_ or some such. Same for a much better understanding of _N.
thorelii_. Thank-you all!!!

About the use of the name _N. smilesii_, if it can be demonstrated the plant
on the type specimen this is not _N. mirabilis_, there is no need to wait
for a taxonomic revision to use it for plants which are a match to the
specimen. It has already been established. My problem with using the name
is Dr. Schlauer did examine it and he is convinced it is _N. mirabilis_. We
need a tie breaker; someone else besides for either Dr. Cheek or Dr.
Schlauer to review it, yet again. Even better would be a very clear and
detailed photograph of the type, or even a series of photos which are clear
and demonstrate the details needed to make a for certain identification.
Many photographs of various type specimens I have seen are out of focus,
poorly composed, made in bad lighting resulting so little contrast that no
details can be seen. :( I'm not saying I could do a better job of it; just
that it is very difficult to make a camera see what the human eye can when a
subject is viewed in person.

I think this specimen is deposited at Kew Gardens.

I have to agree, _N anamensis_ does appear as somewhat intermediate between
_N. gracilis_ and _N. hirsuta_ (minus _N. hispida_) :) It does have those
very short, fuzzy hairs similar to what you see on the leaves of _N. h._,
and the petioles are slightly decurrent, less than what you see in _N. g._
but more than what is seen on _N. h._. Of course the tuberous roots are
rather unique, different even from the semi-tuberous roots seen on _N.
thorelii_.

For some reason, I was thinking the name _N. mirabilis smilesii_ was
published one year before the name _N. smilesii_--I guess not!!!


Sincerely,
Dave Evans
www.dangerousplants.com


-----Original Message-----
From: WildJungle@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of marcello catalano

Hi Dave!

As far as I know Schlauer only used to say that most of the plants in the
collections around the world that are labeled N. anamensis were in fact 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 (per's. comm.)"),
studies that have never been officially published, also because - I think -
they are a much bigger thing for us growers than for taxonomists!

I think Cheek will just publish 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 in fact 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
publish 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 Ch'ien 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 hear from him for ages :)))) until when he will publish 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 favorite 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, at 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 published. The
most official publication 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 published. 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 published yet, are we all allowed to freely be wrong :)))???
What's the minimum "official appearance" required to "officially" make a
simple correction like that? is a public email in a public 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 published in 1895. The plant found in 1895 has been
seen by Cheek, who says 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 Cheek'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