-Hi,
I loaded up the pics of the N. thorelii ? Loei on the PLANT PARTS
album at the /group/nepenthesclub.  Added some extras under the album
2007 and I'll add some more to show the size difference of the N.
smilesii , N. anamensis and N. geoffrayii that I grow here.
Truly,
Tom--

  In WildJungle@yahoogroups.com, marcello catalano <rafflesiana@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Tom!
>  My main question is: did you find a plant like that
> in Loei ??? If it's not from Phu Kradung or Thung
> Kramang, I would be really curious to know where and
> at which altitude!!! Of course you can be general, but
> I thought those were the only two places with
> Nepenthes in Loei...By the way, if you still have the
> thorelii from Trat (we should have the same plants
> from that area now, even if probably from two
> different villages) you can see how not only the lids
> are all apple-shaped, but the whole plant is also
> completely glabrous, which is a very big difference
> with N. smilesii and N. sp. Chanà !!! To anybody who
> is reading, don't worry, no secrets: my cuttings are
> growing (sp. Chanà, thorelii and "Trang bizarre"),
> I'll take photos and I'll tell you about other
> differences in the future, I just want to wait and be
> able to talk about mature plants, to be sure of what
> I'm talking about...
> Marcello
>
>
>
>
> --- sulud1 <sulud1@...> wrote:
>
> > --Marcello,
> > Thanks for the update.  I'll try and keep it for
> > future records. I do have
> > this one plant from Loei that i thought it might be
> > N. thorelii but the traps
> > are putting on the oval not apple shaped lids.  The
> > leaves are flatter and
> > narrower than the typical N. anamensis.  This might
> > be that I was
> > growing it as a lowlander.  I moved it to a cooler
> > location to see if the
> > leaves and traps change.  Otherwise it will die in
> > the cold.  I get access
> > to a computer next week and will try and load up
> > some picks of these.
> > Truly,
> > Tom
> >
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative
vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
>

Hi Tom!
  My main question is: did you find a plant like that
in Loei ??? If it's not from Phu Kradung or Thung
Kramang, I would be really curious to know where and
at which altitude!!! Of course you can be general, but
I thought those were the only two places with
Nepenthes in Loei...By the way, if you still have the
thorelii from Trat (we should have the same plants
from that area now, even if probably from two
different villages) you can see how not only the lids
are all apple-shaped, but the whole plant is also
completely glabrous, which is a very big difference
with N. smilesii and N. sp. Chanà !!! To anybody who
is reading, don't worry, no secrets: my cuttings are
growing (sp. Chanà, thorelii and "Trang bizarre"),
I'll take photos and I'll tell you about other
differences in the future, I just want to wait and be
able to talk about mature plants, to be sure of what
I'm talking about...
Marcello




--- sulud1 <sulud1@...> wrote:

> --Marcello,
> Thanks for the update.  I'll try and keep it for
> future records. I do have
> this one plant from Loei that i thought it might be
> N. thorelii but the traps
> are putting on the oval not apple shaped lids.  The
> leaves are flatter and
> narrower than the typical N. anamensis.  This might
> be that I was
> growing it as a lowlander.  I moved it to a cooler
> location to see if the
> leaves and traps change.  Otherwise it will die in
> the cold.  I get access
> to a computer next week and will try and load up
> some picks of these.
> Truly,
> Tom
>



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

--Marcello,
Thanks for the update.  I'll try and keep it for future records. I do have
this one plant from Loei that i thought it might be N. thorelii but the traps
are putting on the oval not apple shaped lids.  The leaves are flatter and
narrower than the typical N. anamensis.  This might be that I was
growing it as a lowlander.  I moved it to a cooler location to see if the
leaves and traps change.  Otherwise it will die in the cold.  I get access
to a computer next week and will try and load up some picks of these.
Truly,
Tom




- In WildJungle@yahoogroups.com, marcello catalano <rafflesiana@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Tom!
> I read about Weiner and Westphal, if I'm not wrong,
> selling mirabilis var. anamensis and var. smilesii in
> the '80-'85. And I think those were just mirabilis, as
> all the photos I saw around of these two varieties
> usually are mirabilis photos.
> About the others, I bought "thorelii" from wistuba and
> Phil Mann, and they were both smilesii.
> I saw "thorelii" at BE and it was smilesii (in the new
> version of BE catalogue the same plants are now sold
> as anamensis/smilesii). BE had those plants from
> deKanel if I'm not wrong.
> About the others, I think they are all smilesii (phu
> Kradung) a part from some plants coming from Japan. It
> seems there they had SOME true thorelii plants (the
> one Kondo took in Cambodia?) which they used for SOME
> hybrids (many of those hybrids COULD still have been
> made with smilesii and not thorelii) and which
> eventually found their way among SOME of the US
> hobbists.
> Marcello
>
>
>
>
> --- sulud1 <sulud1@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I did some digging back into some old catalogues for
> > another subject
> > and found that in '94 Wistuba was selling N.
> > mirabilis "Smilesi" for
> > $15.00 and N. thorelii for $30.00 in '95. '96 he
> > sold N. kampotiana for
> > $60.00 then in '97 N. anamensis for $40.00 and
> > N.thorelii for $30.00.
> > '98 N. anamensis the same then in 2000 N. anamensis
> > for $10.00 thru to
> > 2004.
> > I found Kosobe Botanical Garden under I. Kusakabe
> > crossing N. thorelii
> > from 1974  and on.
> > I found John deKanel selling in '96 N. thorelii from
> > Phu Kadung starting
> > at $45.00 running to 2002 at $20.00.
> > Are these all the same clone with a different name?
> > Maybe they can verify where the IVM came from.
> > Is any of this material alive? Surely they sold some
> > and someone has it.
> > Truly,
> > Tom
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
________________________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>

Hi Tom!
I read about Weiner and Westphal, if I'm not wrong,
selling mirabilis var. anamensis and var. smilesii in
the '80-'85. And I think those were just mirabilis, as
all the photos I saw around of these two varieties
usually are mirabilis photos.
About the others, I bought "thorelii" from wistuba and
Phil Mann, and they were both smilesii.
I saw "thorelii" at BE and it was smilesii (in the new
version of BE catalogue the same plants are now sold
as anamensis/smilesii). BE had those plants from
deKanel if I'm not wrong.
About the others, I think they are all smilesii (phu
Kradung) a part from some plants coming from Japan. It
seems there they had SOME true thorelii plants (the
one Kondo took in Cambodia?) which they used for SOME
hybrids (many of those hybrids COULD still have been
made with smilesii and not thorelii) and which
eventually found their way among SOME of the US
hobbists.
Marcello




--- sulud1 <sulud1@...> wrote:

> Hi,
> I did some digging back into some old catalogues for
> another subject
> and found that in '94 Wistuba was selling N.
> mirabilis "Smilesi" for
> $15.00 and N. thorelii for $30.00 in '95. '96 he
> sold N. kampotiana for
> $60.00 then in '97 N. anamensis for $40.00 and
> N.thorelii for $30.00.
> '98 N. anamensis the same then in 2000 N. anamensis
> for $10.00 thru to
> 2004.
> I found Kosobe Botanical Garden under I. Kusakabe
> crossing N. thorelii
> from 1974  and on.
> I found John deKanel selling in '96 N. thorelii from
> Phu Kadung starting
> at $45.00 running to 2002 at $20.00.
> Are these all the same clone with a different name?
> Maybe they can verify where the IVM came from.
> Is any of this material alive? Surely they sold some
> and someone has it.
> Truly,
> Tom




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

Hi,
I did some digging back into some old catalogues for another subject
and found that in '94 Wistuba was selling N. mirabilis "Smilesi" for
$15.00 and N. thorelii for $30.00 in '95. '96 he sold N. kampotiana for
$60.00 then in '97 N. anamensis for $40.00 and N.thorelii for $30.00.
'98 N. anamensis the same then in 2000 N. anamensis for $10.00 thru to
2004.
I found Kosobe Botanical Garden under I. Kusakabe crossing N. thorelii
from 1974  and on.
I found John deKanel selling in '96 N. thorelii from Phu Kadung starting
at $45.00 running to 2002 at $20.00.
Are these all the same clone with a different name?
Maybe they can verify where the IVM came from.
Is any of this material alive? Surely they sold some and someone has it.
Truly,
Tom

--- In WildJungle@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Evans" <dpevans@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Marcello,
>
>
>
>
>
> That is why I cross-posted these last few emails.  If I have miss-wrote
what
> Jan Schlauer said, he will correct me.  He wrote about it several year
ago,
> and it is somewhere is the CP digest.  I might still have the emails
> somewhere, if I find it, I will forward to you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Evans
>
> www.dangerousplants.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WildJungle@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WildJungle@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of marcello catalano
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:12 PM
> To: WildJungle@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WildJungle] RE: Thai species and herbarium specimens
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> wow, this changes everything! I had no idea that
> Schlauer had seen that same specimen! I thought
> Schlauer was basing his thought on what Danser had
> written in his monograph! If actually Schlauer and
> Cheek have seen exactly the same specimen and they
> can't agree about mirabilis or smilesii, there's not
> much I can say!!! But I think: or that plant is REALLY
> small, or yes, it could even be a hybrid!! But to have
> doubts about chosing between these two species, a big
> problem must exist! I mean, they are completely
> different! Dave, can you give me any email, forum page
> or document where Schlauer sais exactly what you say,
> that he "saw the specimen" and he thinks it's
> mirabilis. I still suspect that he's just referring us
> what the most official idea (from Danser) is. Also
> because as far as I know Schlauer never said anything
> about all this matter since my website presented to a
> larger audience the theory of M. Cheek. But that
> doesn't mean much, of course.
>
> .
> >
> > I think this specimen is deposited at Kew Gardens.
>
> Ys it is. Before my next trip to Thailand I want to go
> there and make many questions to Mr. Cheek, and see
> all the thai nepenthes specimens at Kew, if possible
> :)))
>
> Baw Saw (I'm not sure if I wrote this in my last
> update, I think so) is a place that now probably is in
> Laos. The SAME year that the plant was found (!!!)
> Thailand lost an enormous area on the other side of
> the Mekong (Nam Kwang). As at least 3 smilesii
> locations exist which are more or less on that "line"
> (but on the thai side of the river) I think Baw Saw is
> simply on the other side, which nowadays is laotian.
> And the name could also be different. Baw Saw (Bride &
> Bridegroom) in thai language is any place where
> couples meet when thay are in love. There are many
> small, natural places in Thailand with that name. All
> these infos came from hours of exhausting conversation
> with the people of the Thai Foreign Ministry, if I
> well remember.
>
> It's true, mirabilis and smilesii COULD grow together,
> but personally I've never seen anything like that at
> all the smilesii locations I've seen, plus I would
> say, as far as I know, that in Thailand the only
> natural hybrid at the moment is mirabilis x
> ampullaria, even if more than those two species are
> growing relatively close one to the other.
>
> Again, as you agree with me about that, at this point
> - considering how we defeated most of the confusion
> about the rest of the problem - changing again the
> name from smilesii to anamensis wouldn't be a big
> problem :))))
>
> Marcello
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
> FareChase.
> http://farechase. <http://farechase.yahoo.com/> yahoo.com/
>

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.

wow, this changes everything! I had no idea that
Schlauer had seen that same specimen! I thought
Schlauer was basing his thought on what Danser had
written in his monograph! If actually Schlauer and
Cheek have seen exactly the same specimen and they
can't agree about mirabilis or smilesii, there's not
much I can say!!! But I think: or that plant is REALLY
small, or yes, it could even be a hybrid!! But to have
doubts about chosing between these two species, a big
problem must exist! I mean, they are completely
different! Dave, can you give me any email, forum page
or document where Schlauer sais exactly what you say,
that he "saw the specimen" and he thinks it's
mirabilis. I still suspect that he's just referring us
what the most official idea (from Danser) is. Also
because as far as I know Schlauer never said anything
about all this matter since my website presented to a
larger audience the theory of M. Cheek. But that
doesn't mean much, of course.


.
>
> I think this specimen is deposited at Kew Gardens.


Ys it is. Before my next trip to Thailand I want to go
there and make many questions to Mr. Cheek, and see
all the thai nepenthes specimens at Kew, if possible
:)))

Baw Saw (I'm not sure if I wrote this in my last
update, I think so) is a place that now probably is in
Laos. The SAME year that the plant was found (!!!)
Thailand lost an enormous area on the other side of
the Mekong (Nam Kwang). As at least 3 smilesii
locations exist which are more or less on that "line"
(but on the thai side of the river) I think Baw Saw is
simply on the other side, which nowadays is laotian.
And the name could also be different. Baw Saw (Bride &
Bridegroom) in thai language is any place where
couples meet when thay are in love. There are many
small, natural places in Thailand with that name. All
these infos came from hours of exhausting conversation
with the people of the Thai Foreign Ministry, if I
well remember.

It's true, mirabilis and smilesii COULD grow together,
but personally I've never seen anything like that at
all the smilesii locations I've seen, plus I would
say, as far as I know, that in Thailand the only
natural hybrid at the moment is mirabilis x
ampullaria, even if more than those two species are
growing relatively close one to the other.

Again, as you agree with me about that, at this point
- considering how we defeated most of the confusion
about the rest of the problem - changing again the
name from smilesii to anamensis wouldn't be a big
problem :))))

Marcello



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/

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

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

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

Hi,
I added the shot of N. geoffrayi tendril for comparison to N. anamensis.
I'll try and get some comparison pics of the wings and leaves.  You
should be able to find these plants near Kampot in the surrounding
mountains.
Truly,
Tom

> Geoffrayi has Operculum extus leviter pilosum where as Anamensis has
> extus pubescent et punctatum with tomentose inner margin.

mmm...yes, that means geoffray is "lightly hairy" while anamensis
is "pubescent" (a word that is usually related to even smaller hair, I
think, the same you could find on many sarracenia species) and that
seems to correspond to the lids you have there. Your three specimens
are all coming from Phu Kradung or the geoffrayi is coming from
somewhere else? thanks,
marcello

--- In WildJungle@yahoogroups.com, "rafflesiana" <rafflesiana@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> While the anamensis and smilesii lids look identical, it's quite
> interesting to see how different is the geoffrayi lid, especially
> considering the greenish color, the shape (more triangular)
and ...the
> hair all around the edge! Where is that specimen coming from? What
made
> you think that this particular specimen responded more than the
other
> two to the description of N. geoffrayi? thanks!
> Marcello
>
Hi,
I used the original description by Lecomte for N. geoffrayi and the
and the original description by Macfarlane for N. anamensis.
Geoffrayi has Operculum extus leviter pilosum where as Anamensis has
extus pubescen et punctatum with tomentose inner margin.  I don't
have the exact descriptions on me now since I did not think I would
have access to this public library today.  The power has been out
for several days due to a wind storm on thursday and I have limited
access when I can find a terminal available. Several other features
matched to the description given by Lecomte, tendril, leaves, ect
but clearly
the plants are related.
Truly,
Tom

Hi Tom,

While the anamensis and smilesii lids look identical, it's quite
interesting to see how different is the geoffrayi lid, especially
considering the greenish color, the shape (more triangular) and ...the
hair all around the edge! Where is that specimen coming from? What made
you think that this particular specimen responded more than the other
two to the description of N. geoffrayi? thanks!
Marcello

Hi,
I posted some different lid and tendril shots of what from Lecomte and
Macfarlane's are N. anamensis and N. geoffrayi. These are at
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nepenthesclub under the cover photo of N.
anamensis PLANT PARTS.
Truly,
Tom

Dear List,


The _N. campanulata_ flowers have started to open and the first clone is
male.  It is not shedding pollen yet, but it has started to emit an odor.  I
suppose it will start shedding pollen in about two or three days, right as
I'm away on vacation.  Well it should still be shedding pollen when I get
back on Sunday.

Hopefully the next clone is female, but since the two stalks are identical
mirror images of each-other, I believe they are the same sex.

I'm in contact with someone who has a female _N. campanulata_ in flower.
Does any else want pollen of this species?  Please contact me at:
dpevans@...


Thanks,
Dave Evans

Dear List,


I have two _N. campanulata_ developing flower stalks.  Neither have flowered
before and there is a decent chance they are the same clone...  Just wanted
to let people know there might be some _N. campanulata_ pollen available or
pollen needed or seeds thereof available rather soon.

Would like to make seed of _N. campanulata_.  If that doesn't work out,
hybrids fine too.  Please contact me at dpevans@... if you have
_N. campanulata_ in flower also.


Thank-you,
Dave Evans
www.dangerousplants.com

Dear List,


I have a plant that is from Thailand and it is flower and is now receptive
for pollination.  I don't have any photos of it to show you, but it really
is a neat looking _Nepenthes_.  Thanks Henning :)  It has leaves which are
nearly identical to those of _N. ventricosa_, unlike my other _N. thorelii_
which are much thinner...  The pitchers are more developed or robust in
shape, however, and the peristome is expanded and has red stripes.  While
the leaves and the rosette look similar to _N. ventricosa_, the pitchers are
superficially similar to those of _N. rafflesiana_.

Would like pollen from any _Nepenthes_ in exchange for half of the seed
produced.  Please contact me at: dpevans@...


Thanks,
Dave Evans
www.dangerousplants.com

---Hi,
The cover photo Dried specimens is of adult traps from Phu Kadung that
I found. The two on the left is of the intermediate upper traps.  The two
in the middle are lower traps from the same type plant and the two on
the right are lower traps from another smaller type of plant.  I found male
and female flower spikes on several plants from the ones on the left and
the smaller plant on the right.  Seeing how they were flowering I
assumed that they were mature flowering plants.  Maybe not.  Anyways
I can't be absolutely sure until these flower.  I found multiple colonies in
different locations including along the cliffs on Phu Kadung.  I do have
another type from Phu Kadung that is showing longer tendrils like N.
thorelii.
As for pictures of the two living specimens I have it on DVD now but
don't have a screen capture program to show them on the group yet.
Truly,
Tom
  In WildJungle@yahoogroups.com, "rafflesiana" <rafflesiana@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
> I post this here just to keep this forum alive :)
> I read your last post in the nepenthesclub about the dry specimens.
> Nice to see how the seeds and seed pods of N. thorelii are different
> from those of N. smilesii. But yet I don't see any difference between
> N. smilesii and anamensis, that you say are two different species. I
> also don't understand how two (almost?) identical species can live in
> the same place (phu kradung) without mixing. And if they did how can
> you tell the difference between the two? How could it happen that in
> the last million years, even if in the same location, you can still
> find the same two species and clearly see the differences among
them
> and maybe even spot the hybrids between the two? I posted a new
group
> of photos, under the name smilesii/anamensis (sorry if some of them
are
> low quality). They're my seedlings from phu kradung. They're from the
> same flower, but really different. Can you tell what species is that or
> if any of those is a hybrid anamxsmil? Actually I've been on just one
> of the nepenthes locations at phu kradung, that series of cliffs at the
> southern extreme edge. I know they grow in another 2-3 places on
Phu
> Kradung, but not really easy to reach by humans...have you been
there,
> in the "lost" locations? Maybe the other species you mention grows
> there... If you say that these two species grow on different mountains
> or at different locations on the same mountain maybe what you say
could
> have happened...Do you have pictures of living specimens of the two
> species? Thanks!
> Marcello
>

Hi Tom,
I post this here just to keep this forum alive :)
I read your last post in the nepenthesclub about the dry specimens.
Nice to see how the seeds and seed pods of N. thorelii are different
from those of N. smilesii. But yet I don't see any difference between
N. smilesii and anamensis, that you say are two different species. I
also don't understand how two (almost?) identical species can live in
the same place (phu kradung) without mixing. And if they did how can
you tell the difference between the two? How could it happen that in
the last million years, even if in the same location, you can still
find the same two species and clearly see the differences among them
and maybe even spot the hybrids between the two? I posted a new group
of photos, under the name smilesii/anamensis (sorry if some of them are
low quality). They're my seedlings from phu kradung. They're from the
same flower, but really different. Can you tell what species is that or
if any of those is a hybrid anamxsmil? Actually I've been on just one
of the nepenthes locations at phu kradung, that series of cliffs at the
southern extreme edge. I know they grow in another 2-3 places on Phu
Kradung, but not really easy to reach by humans...have you been there,
in the "lost" locations? Maybe the other species you mention grows
there... If you say that these two species grow on different mountains
or at different locations on the same mountain maybe what you say could
have happened...Do you have pictures of living specimens of the two
species? Thanks!
Marcello

I just got this post after answering Dave's post. Thanks for clearing up the
mirabilis 'smilesii' issue, Marcello. We do indeed consider the plant in the
photo to be a smilesii (syn. anamensis).  :)

T & M



>From: "rafflesiana" <rafflesiana@...>
>Reply-To: WildJungle@yahoogroups.com
>To: WildJungle@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [WildJungle] Re: [CP] thai species and herbarium specimens
>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:22:17 -0000
>
> > 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
>
>
>

> 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

Dear Trent,


This plant is definitely _N. kampotiana/anamensis_.  I believe _N. thorelii_
has a shorter neck to the pitchers.  Also, I think I noticed something else
that can help tell them apart.  My two clones of _N. kampotiana/anamensis_
have thin, simple spurs; while the spurs on my _N. thorelii_, both the plant
from Jeff Shafer and the seedlings from Nong show complex spurs with 3 or 4
points, rarely are they simple and when they are simple they are thicker...


Sincerely,
Dave Evans


"Now, we talked to Joan Hanover.
She and her husband, George, were
visiting with us.  They are near
retirement, retiring, in the process
of retiring, meaning they're smart,
active, capable people who are
retirement age and are retiring."
--President George 'duh-bya' Bush



-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle and Trent [mailto:flaneps@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:42 PM
To: dpevans@...
Subject: Photo of entire plant of N. kampotiana

The more we look at this plant, the more we think it might be an ugly N.
thorelii.  We only have three greenhouse bred N. thorelii plants to compare,
and of course they look nothing like this N. kampotiana.  Since this came
from the wild, it could have a mirabilis (or other species) as a great
grandparent.

The shape of the trap is not very distinctive.  The tendril is very short
compared to our N. thorelii, the plant holds the trap very close to the tip
of the leaf.

A few more photos to come...

T & M

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

Hi Dave!

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, the 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.

N. globosa has nothing to do with N. thorelii or N. smilesii, but it
has to do with N. mirabilis. That's sure. Plus, in Thailand there
seems to be more than the 2-3 species we know. And all the new,
undescribed species that we now start to discover seem to derive
from these two ancestors: mirabilis and smilesii/thorelii (sanguinea
from the extreme south of Thailand being an even older ancestor of
smilesii/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 only true one. If you read my "smilesii
chronology", that makes things even easier.

Oh, I just checked Tom's photos of "Thorelii Trat". Yes, that's not
smilesii, but as you read in my "Trat" page, we could still being in
front of two similar species (are they two forms of N. thorelii?):
the thorelii I found in Trat (0 m), Ko Chang (400 m) and Bangkok
herbariums (with the note "nothorelii" on the sheet) are in fact
different from the thorelii I found on Pha Taem (200 m) and from
Tom's Trat thorelii (which comes from a different location in Trat).
And by the way, my Trat/Ko Chang plants are really similar to Nong's
tigers, while the other two are more similar to Nong's Cambodia
thorelii/Dave's plants. But yes, maybe they're all true thorelii and
maybe just growing in different conditions (I still have strong
doubts about that...): it's strange how Tom's plants have wide
leaves in cultivation (probably lack of light? but the plants I saw
in the wild were often growing in shade!) and long linear leaves in
the dry specimens (and in the natural habitat).

Tom, you seemed to have disappeared for months!! Please write me
about yor thorelii findings in Trat and other places !! :)

In the mean time, please all of you make all the efforts you can to
give some of your plants/seedlings to worldwide distribution
nurseries, as while we talk these plants are disappearing quite
fast. In some cases just 5-15 plants were surviving in the locations
I visited. Because of rice paddies or new buildings, not because of
the 1-2 illegal poachers, but anyway...

Marcello

Dear Lists,


If someone gets the chance, similar quality photos of _N. smilesii_ type
specimens would be great :)  As it appears at least two different species
where named using the name "smilesii".  One of them, everyone can agree was
really _Nepenthes mirabilis_.

It is a form of _N. mirabilis_, which has serrated leaf margin as per the
discussion I had with Dr. Jan Schlauer at the 2006 ICPS conference.  This
name refers to nothing of taxonomic importance, just another _N. mirabilis_
that impressed the author at the time.

However, I am confused about which specimens were actually reviewed Dr.
Schlauer.  It seems there is another plant, named a bit earlier(???), the
specimens of which need to be reviewed again, by more people it seems.
Unfortunately, the photos I have seen of these specimens do not show a level
of clarity in which such details become clear and we have to rely upon the
hearsay of those who have personally reviewed the sheets.
Please review:
http://www.nepenthesofthailand.com/Alongresearch.htm

If Marco's and Martin Cheek's ideas are correct, the plant on the original
sheet for first plant named _Nepenthes smilesii_ should not show leaf margin
serration and it should not have well defined petioles.  Are these features
present on the specimen (at Kew) or not?


Dave Evans

Dear Tom,


Finally, someone has posted photos of these types and I can see details of
the plants there in the photos!!!  Thanks, Tom.

Well, in the photos Tom posted, the plants on the sheets do look rather like
the plant I have been cultivating as _N. thorelii_, which also seems to be a
match to the plants Tom has been photographing and calling _N. thorelii_.
They don't seem to match the new species _N. globosa_ (=N. "Viking")-it has
wider leaves and different pitchers, right Tom?

It has been mentioned by several people, including Dr. Jan Schlauer, that
_N. globosa_ and _N. thorelii_ could be could be con-specific.  So what do
you all think?  Do these sheets show the new species _N. globosa_?

On the other hand, do you think the photos of the type could or could not be
a match for the plant shown in the link below? (find more links to close-ups
within the photo)
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dpevans/N_thorelii.htm


Thanks,
Dave Evans


-----Original Message-----
From: cp-bounces@... On Behalf Of tom kahl

Hi, I posted some pics of N. thorelii as herbarium specimens I made at
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nepenthesclub.
These are at the end of the misc file.
You may have to join the group to acess the photos.
There were also some current pics of N. sp "Viking" that I have.

Truly, Tom

Dear Wild Jungle,


Here is Bruce Bednar's reply about the identity of his mystery "N.
anamensis".  Apparently, he received them with this label from Europe.
These plants were not collected from the Elephant Mountains as I previously
thought Bruce had so indicated.  My mistake.

Anyway, this frees up the plant to be pretty much anything, and could very
well be a man-made hybrid involving _N. gracilis_ and _N. thorelii_.  I'm
not sure why Bruce says they look like _N. mirabilis_ though as the leaves
are not petiolate.  _N. mirabilis_ does have a very strong petiole rather
like _N. truncata_ or _N. maxima_.  Also the lamia of the leaf blade is
strongly decurrent, similar fashion to both _N. gracilis_ and _N.
trichocarpa_.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dpevans/N_anamensis.htm


Dave Evans
New Jersey, USA
www.Dangerousplants.com


-----Original Message-----
From: bruce bednar [mailto:buellmyster@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 6:54 AM
To: dpevans@...
Subject: Re: N. anamensis

I think your into a can of worms looking for the CORRECT answer to what you
have will be difficult, as all us long term collectors have a different
opinion. Back in the late 70's, lots of thorelii were in everyones
collection, they were all mirabilis! Thorelii is out of Viet Nam and was
rare in the 80"s. Me and Clyde Bramblett brought in 100 plants of what was
at that time, keyed out as kampotiana from the Elephant Mts. In the 90's a
major TC lab crancked out 100's of N.thorelii and sold them, they in my
opinion were the true kampotiana. Anamensis was in the USA back in the 80's
but was a maroon leaved mirabilis that had real wavy foliage and a solid
green pitcher, later in the late 90's a new Anamensis arrived out of Europe,

the foliage looked like mirabilis, but the pitchers are short, squat and fat

with lots of speckling...this is what I'm selling as Anamensis, I do not
feel that is correct, but continue that name as it was on it when it
arrived! I've had N.smillisii since 1981, all the ones I've seen are just
plain old mirabilis...the guessing game goes on, good growing.  (Non of the
mentioned species look like gracilis)  Bruce Lee


----- Original Message -----
From: <dpevans@...>
To: "'bruce bednar'" <buellmyster@...>
Cc: <WildJungle@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:33 PM
Subject: RE: N. anamensis


> Dear Bruce,
>
>
> I purchased a plant from Andreas Wistuba he calls _Nepenthes anamensis_,
> Andreas' plant is a different clone, but the same species as your
> _Nepenthes
> kampotiana_.  All the information I've been able to find indicates both he
> and you have the correct species for both _N. kampotiana_ (yours) and _N.
> anamensis_ (his).  Both of these species were previously named _N.
> smilesii_
> is 1895.  I think we have a case in which both _N. thorelii_ and _N.
> smilesii_ are twin species rather similar to the situation we have with
> _N.
> lowii_ and _N. ephippiata_.
>
> Please see:
> http://www.nepenthesofthailand.com/Conclusionssofar.htm
> Main page:
> http://www.nepenthesofthailand.com/
>
>
> However, your "N. anamensis" is not a match for either and it is not a
> match
> for _N. mirabilis_, nor _N. thorelii_ and I would really like to figure
> out
> just what it is...  So far the only species I can put it close to is _N.
> gracilis_--the way it vines out and grows with nearly the exact same
> pattern
> as _N. gracilis_ and _N. trichocarpa_.  In fact, it is nearly a perfect
> match regarding the pitcher and leaf shape for _N. trichocarpa_!  I have
> some photos of this plant, would you mind taking a look at them?
>
> Do you have any other mystery plants from Indochina available for
> purchase?
> So far I have two plants from your collection, _N. kampotiana_ and "N.
> anamensis".  I wouldn't mind buying some more to help conserve and/or try
> to
> confirm the ID of these clones.
>
>
> Thank-you,
> Dave Evans
> New Jersey, USA
> www.Dangerousplants.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bruce bednar [mailto:buellmyster@...]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: dpevans@...
> Subject: Re: N. anamenis
>
> Dave; I do not have a location for the N.anamensis, the foliage looks like
> mirabilis right down the the leaf edge margin that is so typical of
> mirabilis, but the pitcher is squat, fat and  and pink with light maroon
> speckling thats only present in colder months...have another mirabilis
> form that also speckles during the winter.

Dear Bruce,


I purchased a plant from Andreas Wistuba he calls _Nepenthes anamensis_,
Andreas' plant is a different clone, but the same species as your _Nepenthes
kampotiana_.  All the information I've been able to find indicates both he
and you have the correct species for both _N. kampotiana_ (yours) and _N.
anamensis_ (his).  Both of these species were previously named _N. smilesii_
is 1895.  I think we have a case in which both _N. thorelii_ and _N.
smilesii_ are twin species rather similar to the situation we have with _N.
lowii_ and _N. ephippiata_.

Please see:
http://www.nepenthesofthailand.com/Conclusionssofar.htm
Main page:
http://www.nepenthesofthailand.com/


However, your "N. anamensis" is not a match for either and it is not a match
for _N. mirabilis_, nor _N. thorelii_ and I would really like to figure out
just what it is...  So far the only species I can put it close to is _N.
gracilis_--the way it vines out and grows with nearly the exact same pattern
as _N. gracilis_ and _N. trichocarpa_.  In fact, it is nearly a perfect
match regarding the pitcher and leaf shape for _N. trichocarpa_!  I have
some photos of this plant, would you mind taking a look at them?

Do you have any other mystery plants from Indochina available for purchase?
So far I have two plants from your collection, _N. kampotiana_ and "N.
anamensis".  I wouldn't mind buying some more to help conserve and/or try to
confirm the ID of these clones.


Thank-you,
Dave Evans
New Jersey, USA
www.Dangerousplants.com


-----Original Message-----
From: bruce bednar [mailto:buellmyster@...]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:45 AM
To: dpevans@...
Subject: Re: N. anamenis

Dave; I do not have a location for the N.anamensis, the foliage looks like
mirabilis right down the the leaf edge margin that is so typical of
mirabilis, but the pitcher is squat, fat and  and pink with light maroon
speckling thats only present in colder months...have another mirabilis form
that also speckles during the winter. I have 2 forms of distillatoria...the
rubra form has a red stem and looks exactly like the one listed in Kondo's
Nepenthes book (which looks just like a gracilis) however the ones from
Cantly out of Sri Lanka look very much like mirabilis as dose the anamensis,

our kampotiana looks like a real plain -dull looking thorelii (which is very

ornate and colorful) Good growing.  Bruce Lee

> 1) Is var anamensis and var smilesii are both of the
> same type?
> According teh describing in Exotica Plants
> catalogue, smilesii has
> rounded leaves.
> 2) Is var smilesii the same as kampotiana?
> 3) Is smilesii not a variety of mirabilis but a
> species of its own?
> 4) Back to my main question, are they lowland?
>
> Thank you for reading this confused newbie
> questions. Im sorry once
> again if i have offended anyone

Hi Yat, I don't think you offended anybody :))
I hope you checked nepenthesofthailand.com for more
informations.
Anyway, N. smilesii, anamensis and kampotiana are the
same plant that has been given different names as
every time a new scientist discovered the plant in a
different place and he thought it was a new species
and gave it a new name. It's an intermediate plant, so
it grows at 800-1200 meters (10 degrees by night and
30 by day), but in cultivation it can also be grown as
a lowland plant.
The problem is that even if N. smilesii (or kampotiana
or anamensis, the name smilesii being the most correct
one to my opinion) is a species on its own, it has
been confused and described as a form of mirabilis
many years ago. Since then some nurseries are still
selling red N. mirabilis or other particular N.
mirabilis forms with the name "var. smilesii" or "var.
anamensis" (sometimes only because their plants come
from thailand, where also N. smilesii is growing),
while their plants are infact just simply N. mirabilis
(which in the upper part of the stem produces more
roundish petioled leaves compared to the more linear
leaves at the base, without petiole).
So if you see on a catalogue N. mirabilis var.
anamensis or var. smilesii, you will probably receive
two different forms of mirabilis. While if you see N.
anamensis or kampotiana, you will probably receive N.
smilesii.
If you can check the picture of the plant they sell,
it's quite easy to see the difference, but for this I
send you again to nepenthesofthailand.com.
cheers,
Marcello

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com