Two additional Nepenthes species from Mindanao

Two new Nepenthes species are described in the Philippine Journal of Science: Nepenthes malimumuensis and Nepenthes manobo (Lagunday, Acma, Cabana, Sabas, V.B. Amoroso). Both species are recorded from a single previously unexplored mountain in the Pantaron Range in Central Mindanao.

Map of the mountain ranges in Mindanao, PI; [source]

The paper is available online for free here and includes field data and many descriptive figures. Notable details include:

• • The two new species bring the count of Nepenthes from the Pantaron range to seven species: endemics N. cornuta, N. malimumuensis, N. manobo, N. pantaronensis, and N. talaandig; plus N. surigaoensis and N. truncata
  • N. malimumuensis is compared to N. sumagaya in the species description; N. sumagaya (first described as N. amabilis) had no obvious close relatives at the time of that species’ description and its lower pitchers could not be conclusively identified, so were not included in the description. N. malimumuensis lower pitchers are known and seem superficially similar to Insignes group members like N. insignis, but the lamina and floral morphology of N. malimumuensis and N. sumagaya definitely don’t support an inclusion in the Insignes group. The authors include N. malimumuensis into the N. villosa group based on morphological characteristics, although I think genetic studies may shed more light on the placement of these distinctive species.
  •  N. manobo is compared to N. surigaoensis; these species are both members of the Insignes group although the bulbous bottom and cylindrical upper portion of N. manobo pitchers means this species cannot be easily confused with any other Insignes members.

N. surigaoensis in the Pantaron Range, photo by Thomas Gronemeyer [source]

• N. manobo was observed with “anomalous growth… in having two lids as shown in Figure 3B” (164). This is definitely NOT a stable nor defining characteristic of the species, but rather an interesting deformity noted by the authors on a single upper pitcher on a single vining plant.
• Both new species are only known from approximately 10 plants each and only observed on a single mountain; evidently both species are severely localized to a narrow altitudinal range (1000-1020 meters above sea level) and occur on ultramafic ridges. They are threatened by human encroachment, including illegal logging and quarrying.

Photos of N. malimumuensis and N. manobo can both be found on Co’s Digital Flora of the Philippines:
http://www.phytoimages.siu.edu/cgi-bin/dol/dol_terminal.pl?taxon_name=Nepenthes_malimumuensis&rank=binomial

http://www.phytoimages.siu.edu/cgi-bin/dol/dol_terminal.pl?taxon_name=Nepenthes_manobo&rank=binomial

The Carnivorous Bromeliads

Tropical plant enthusiasts should already be familiar with bromeliads. These neotropical monocots form an incredibly diverse group, from the popular air plant genus Tillandsia to the economically important pineapple, Ananas comosus. The archetypal bromeliad in many horticulturalists’ minds, however, are the tank bromeliads. Here, a rosette of leaves creates areas where rainwater is impounded in a central tank and/or leaf axils. While this strategy is important for epiphytes that need to conserve water high in trees, it also effectively creates a pitcher of sorts.

Catopsis sp. growing with highland Nepenthes

Of the thousands of tank bromeliads, only three are considered truly carnivorous – Brocchinia reducta, Brocchinia hechtioides, and Catopsis berteroniana. For more on their natural history and study of their carnivory, Stewart McPherson wrote an excellent piece on bromeliad carnivory for the Florida Council of Bromeliad Societies that can be found here.

I have always been fascinated by the carnivorous bromeliads, although they are difficult to find stateside. I grew Brocchinia reducta when young, but lost the plant over a cold winter. A few retailers have offered plants recently, so I once again have some of these fascinating plants.

My Catopsis was sold as Catopsis berteroniana two years ago, but it doesn’t key well to that species – allegedly, C. berteroniana usually produces a single pup after flowering, and mine produced three. C. berteroniana also has more upright leaves and more copious wax than my plant (although the authority Palací notes that vegetative morphology alone can’t be used for specific identification). I’ll have to wait until it flowers again and find the keys to the species to be sure.

This good-sized Brocchinia reducta is a welcomed new acquisition. Hopefully, summering it outdoors with my Sarracenia will give it a tighter rosette characteristic to the species. We’ll see how changes by the end of summer.

Two More New Nepenthes Species

This month, two new Nepenthes descriptions were released:

Nepenthes nebularum Mansell & Suarez (2016) of Mindanao

Nepenthes krabiensis Nuanlaong et. al (2016) of southern Thailand

Both papers are public, and can be accessed here:

Click to access CPNv45n4p132_139.pdf

https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ThaiForestBulletin/article/view/53089/58267

Nepenthes nebularum is probably familiar to many enthusiasts as the taxon found in Mindanao not long after the formal description of its closest relative, Nepenthes robcantleyi. An account by Andy Smith depicting what has been described as N. nebularum can be found here on Francois Mey’s blog. In the paper, the authors claim that N. robcantleyi may represent a hybrid between N. truncata and N. nebularum – it will be interesting to see how further publications treat these two taxa. If the differences between N. nebularum and N. robcantleyi do not warrant their separation, N. nebularum will become a heterotypic synonym of N. robcantleyi, as N. robcantleyi takes priority. It is unlikely that the divisive opinions regarding N. robcantleyi will ever fully change, and while somewhat provocative, there’s no concrete proof that N. robcantleyi is a hybrid – some of the Borneo Exotics F2 plants come very close to N. nebularum, but depending on opinion (maybe moreso than fact), there are two explanations:

• Some cultivated N. robcantleyi Queen of Hearts x King of Spades look like N. nebularum because N. nebularum is conspecific with robcantleyi, so infraspecific variation is to be expected. Cheek’s description of N. robcantleyi was based on the Queen of Hearts plant, and even before N. nebularum  was described, many hobbyists claimed that the description of robcantleyi should be amended, because features like the domed lid are unstable from pitcher to pitcher, and other features, like the acuminate leaf tip (which is often called “tendril decurrency” incorrectly, including in the nebularum paper) are not mentioned.
• If N. robcantleyi = N. truncata x nebularum, then some of the Queen of Hearts x King of Spades offspring should look like N. nebularum because it’s a backcross. This is the speculation of Mansell.

Nepenthes krabiensis also has a very clear close relative in Nepenthes rosea, a species I am mostly unfamiliar with – the paper, however, underlines many of the key differences.

Now Up: Recent Synonyms

A new page has been added to the menu bar! For those taxonomically-inclined, I’ve been compiling some recent/pertinent synonyms that can also be accessed here: https://cantharifera.wordpress.com/recent-synonyms/

 

N. glandulifera, seed grown from Borneo Exotics

Inevitable? A “New” Nepenthes Species from Sulawesi

Sulawesi; Lake Poso can be found just to the left of the arm of Central Sulawesi province. [Source]

Jebb and Cheek strike again: the ‘Lake Poso’ form of Nepenthes maxima, notable for having not just one, but several different populations bear cultivar status, has just been described as its own species, the somewhat ironically-named Nepenthes minima (M. Cheek, M.H.P. Jebb 2016) in the journal Blumea. The authors claim that this new species shares many ecological attributes with the pyrophytic Nepenthes of Indochina (well-known for their tuberous rootstocks, like N. smilesii) and a more distant relative, N. abalata (Jebb and Cheek, 2013) of the Philippines.

N. ‘Lake Poso’ in situ, 700 masl (=N. minima?); photo by Alfindra Primaldhi

Found in seasonally dry (and occasionally ever-wet) savannah, the small size of N. minima is reportedly stable and the taxon has some peculiar characteristics, noted briefly here:

• Ecology: Grassland (N. minima) vs. forest (N. maxima)
• Tuberous rootstock
• Single-flowered partial peduncles without bracts (N. minima) vs. double-flowered partial peduncles with bracts (N. maxima)
• Multiple aerial stems (N. minima) vs. single aerial stems (N. maxima)
• Narrowly ovate upper pitchers (N. minima) vs. ovate upper pitchers (N. maxima)
• Precocious flowering

Would you call this upper pitcher “ovate”? I don’t think so. N. ‘Lake Poso’ (=minima?), 400 masl; photo by Alfindra Primaldhi – check out the full-sized, it looks like the spent male scape is double-flowered

The authors state that these characteristics are also stable in cultivation. Furthermore, they suggest that some synonyms, like N. oblanceolata of New Guinea (Ridley, 1916) and N. maxima var. minor (Macfarlane, 1917) – both synonymized by Danser (1928) into the variable concept of N. maxima – may require further work.

N. maxima from 300 masl, Borone, Central Sulawesi; this is not a miniature form

This paper feels like déjà vu to me, especially following the recent description of another miniature, N. parvula, just last week. Some preliminary thoughts follow:

• Ecology, rather than morphology, play a large role in both descriptions. That alone makes the case for speciation much more difficult. While the concept of a species is typically well defined, it’s still ultimately subjective where we draw the line. The authors present the accepted theory that Sulawesi’s highland grassland habitats are anthropogenic in nature and are only about 2000 years old – and they acknowledge that speciation shouldn’t be expected in that time frame – so why do they claim that N. minima MUST have diverged earlier than that without any proof? It would certainly be cyclical (and poor) reasoning to argue that since N. minima is a species, it must be older than its own niche, but that seems to be what the authors have claimed.
• The most intriguing thing is the flower morphology – while not clearly a refutation, I see at least a few double-flowered partial peduncles in this female plant on the CPUK forum.
• Seeds of populations from 400 and 700 masl have entered cultivation in the past from populations of miniature N. maxima, as noted in the cultivar description of N. ‘Lake Poso’. It’s entirely unclear to me whether these plants are included in the concept of N. minima, which is quoted as “1000 – 1700” masl in the paper. According to Dave Evans in the cv. description: “Based on Alfindra’s photographs and his description of the plants, we are confident seed collected from these two lowland populations will grow into plants of Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’.” It should be noted that Lake Poso itself is at an elevation of 485 masl, so I’m deeply confused as to what N. minima actually describes.
• The herbarium specimen designated as the type does not, unfortunately, have a photo at this time. Interestingly, I did find sheets of an “N. maxima var. nana (Marcfarlane)” from the Arfak Mountains in New Guinea – which may be the same N. maxima var. minor the authors reference before. They say that this plant is not pyrophytic, although how they determined that these plants don’t have rootstocks is beyond me unless they conducted field studies.
• I don’t understand what “ovate” upper pitchers means in the context of this taxon – even the line drawing shows a cylindrical upper pitcher with a tapering base, which is  what we expect from N. maxima.

Lower pitcher of N. ‘Lake Poso’ (=minima?) from 700 masl; photo by Alfindra Primaldhi

So, many Nepenthes growers were expecting some work done on N. maxima for a long time – by its broadest definition, it’s a polymorphic and widespread species with some aberrant forms that may deserve species status (like N. eymae Kurata, which has its fair share of controversy as well). However, this certainly wasn’t one of the forms I ever expected to be described as its own species.

A New Nepenthes species… from Australia?

[Source]

Those well-versed in Nepenthes geography should be somewhat familiar with the three Nepenthes species of Cape York, namely N. mirabilis and the two endemic species, N. rowaniae and N. tenax. However, that wasn’t always the case — Frederick Manson Bailey, a prominent botanist in the flora of Queensland, described 10 endemic species to the Cape York area from 1881 to 1905 (numbers are links to herbarium specimens):

N. albolineata (1898) [1] = N. mirabilis
N. alicae (1898) – note the small stature [1] = N. mirabilis
N. armbrustae (1905) [1] = N. mirabilis
N. bernaysii (1881) [1] = N. mirabilis
N. cholmondeleyi (1900) – note the small stature [1] = N. mirabilis
N. garrawayae (1905) [1] = N. mirabilis
N. jardinei (1897) [1], [2] = N. mirabilis
N. moorei (1898) [1] = N. mirabilis
N. pascoensis (1905) [1] = N. mirabilis
N. rowaniae (1897) [1]

Plus von Mueller’s contribution:

N. kennedyana (1865) = N. mirabilis

made for a total of 11 endemic Australian Nepenthes; Nepenthes mirabilis brings the tally up to 12 (for a sense of scale, there are 13 species of Nepenthes in Sulawesi). In 1928, Danser’s monograph The Nepenthaceae of the Netherlands Indies synonymized all of these species with N. mirabilis (including N. rowaniae). Field work by Clarke and Kruger (2005) led to the reinstatement of N. rowaniae (which is now typically accepted) and the description of a new species, Nepenthes tenax; leading to what we generally accept today.

Bailey’s original drawing of N. rowaniae, 1897 [SOURCE]

Nepenthes kennedyana (=mirabilis) in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1882 [Source]; this name was also applied to specimens from New Guinea

But now, it appears we can add a 13th Nepenthes to the list from Cape York with the description of Nepenthes parvula (Gary W. Wilson and Stephanus Venter, 2016) in the journal Phytotaxa. N. parvula is separated from N. tenax by its smaller vegetative and floral stature (which the authors claim is maintained in cultivation; adult pitchers up to 50 mm, cylindrical instead of infundibular in N. tenax) as well as its higher gland density, red coloration on the lid underside, and its ecological preference for continuously wet conditions. The authors also note that spent leaves remain on the stem, forming a “skirt” of leaves (much like an adult Drosophyllum). Apparently, the species is occasionally sympatric with N. mirabilis, N. rowaniae, and N. tenax.

Nepenthes tenax, photo by Stewart McPherson; unsurprisingly, this taxon also has the red lid underside mentioned in the paper

So what can we make of this “mini-tenax“? In my unqualified opinion, there certainly isn’t enough justification to separate Nepenthes parvula from N. tenax when taken in the larger context of Nepenthes taxonomy. Larger morphological differences haven’t led to such separation (e.g. N. mirabilis var. globosa — which was somewhat controversial too, as many called for its elevation to species status, but has never been contested). Can these cultivated specimens prove that N. parvula isn’t just a stunted, neotenic, or geographical form of N. tenax? Without further details from the authors, I’m highly skeptical of this new taxon. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if the authors reviewed Bailey’s herbarium material, because two of his species, N. alicae and N. cholmondeleyi, appear to be very small forms of Cape York Nepenthes as well. Time will tell.

Photograph from the Australian Tropical Herbarium Facebook page

More photos of N. parvula in situ can be found here: link

Photograph from the Australian Tropical Herbarium Facebook page

Rock loop

Some fun with photoshop:

I find Nepenthes campanulata to be a pretty quick grower for me – this is only a year and some-odd months worth of growth.

Summer Camping

Pardon the pun. My Nepenthes campanulata are looking pretty nice right now and are showing a lot of progress.

The entire setup – both plants are putting a little more size on recently

My red Malesiana Tropicals clone

On the left, my red Malesiana clone; on the right, my Borneo Exotics clone

The Borneo Exotics clone again

Toughen up!

New plants are great, but a lot of Nepenthes only come in extra-small sizes. Many of the micropropagated plants from Andreas Wistuba and Borneo Exotics are only partially hardened and crucially, they lack healthy new root tips (but hey, they’re cheap!). First things first, an initial swabbing for pests and a repotting:

Two plants from Borneo Exotics: on the left, N. densiflora (G. Leuser); on the right, N. diatas (G. Bandahara). These closely related species from Sumatra demonstrate two different stages of hardness – the N. densiflora is larger, with thicker leaves and many healthy root tips, while the N. diatas has no roots and poor color. The best thing to do is some coddling:

A cup for humidity, carefully tilted to allow for some air exchange, and the plants are moved into the rack after their cursory observation period. Some results after one month:

It’s starting to look better already. One important thing to note is the pitcher:

This tiny first pitcher isn’t just cute – it’s an opportunity. I fed it with some crushed fish pellets for the boost it needs. I did this same technique with an equally minuscule BE N. lingulata, which worked splendidly:

N. lingulata, December 2015

N. lingulata, March 2016

In my low humidity setup, this is one of the best ways to jump start growth, although weaning the plant off of the cup isn’t always pretty! Results are best in a shaded or otherwise protected area, or your plants will be fried!

Ginkgo seedlings

Back in mid-September, I collected a heavy handful of Ginkgo biloba seeds from a neighborhood tree. I potted them in some old Nepenthes media plus pumice and lava rock and stratified them in a refrigerator until December, when I set the pot on a windowsill. Seven months later, I have some nice looking seedlings:

The eight viable seedlings as of July 2016. The seedling in the foreground with the black ribbon around it is the only three-edged seed to germinate – supposedly this should be the single male tree in the batch

From my batch of 20 seeds, I got a pretty lousy germination rate – only 10 germinated, and 2 of those seedlings proved nonviable, although the end result is probably more Ginkgo seedlings than I need.

Ginkgo foliage – note the unique bisected veination from petiole to leaf edge

I noticed that many of the seeds in the pot would initially swell and crack the seedcoat, but lacked radicles (the initial root). After waiting several months on these seeds, hoping they would grow, I finally dissected several of them only to find they lacked embryos! It seems like the seeds I collected were only semi-fertile at best, although the grove I collected them from has plenty of male Ginkgo trees.

Ginkgo axillary bud that might be activating – this seedling shows some early promise and I’m hoping it will continue to branch

For a while, I thought that I had stratified my seeds too early, killing many of the embryos that still needed time and the warmth of autumn to develop. Anecdotally, I collected several seeds from female Ginkgo around Davis in January and dissected them, only to find that they, too, lacked embryos despite the warm fall conditions they experienced.

I’ll probably end up thinning out these seedlings, moving some of them to deeper pots or into the ground but I will keep some as misho (bonsai started from seeds) and potentially practice some grafting with female branches.