Andreas Wistuba Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Here is a picture of the same species Aurélien posted a pic of this afternoon (http://myrmecodia.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/27-hydnophytum-crassicaule-van-royen/?p=113). At first I was quite convinced that it is Hydnophytum confertifolium (please see info in posting below). While it has a spiny caudex, occurs on Doormanstop and has roundish leaves, dimensions simply do not fit at all. According to the type description the leaves of Hydnophytum confertifolium are just to be expected 5mm in diameter. A dimension-mixup in the description? The plant on the picture was HUGE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 The description below - if correct in all dimensions - makes it quite clear, that the plant pictured above and here cannot really be Hydnophytum confertifolium. The leaves of the plant that I found are rather 5 cm than 5 mm long. Spines are branched (!) but shorter, ca. 5mm. So it seems very likely, that the plant pictured here is indeed an undescribed species - the only known thorny species from the highlands are Hydnophytum ramispinum and H. confertifolium! From: Merr. & L.M. Perry J. Arnold Arbor. 25(1): 20 1945: "Hydnophytum confertifolium sp. nov. Tuber parvum spinis conspersis praeditum; spinis ± 1 cm. longis interdum ramosis; caulibus pluribus ramosis; ramis angulatis; internodiis ultimi ramuli ± l.5 mm. longis; foliis glabris subrotundatis, circiter 5 mm. longis et 4 mm. latis, in sicco rugulosis, margine recurvis, costa tantum basi manifesta; petiolo 1-2 mm. longo; stipulis parvis, late triangularibus, caducis; floribus in axillis foliorum insertis, ima basi immersis; calyce libero, glabro, margine undulato vel leviter lobato, cum ovario 2 mm. longo; corolla in alabastro clavata, apice 4-angulata, acutiuscula; corollae tubo 7-8 mm. longo. fauce parce piloso, lobis circiter 3 mm. longis, sub apice uncinulatis; antheris lineari-oblongis in fauce insertis, fere sessilibus; stylo longo, stigmate exserto; drupis maturis cum calyce 6 mm. longis; pyrenis 3 mm. longis, 2 mm. latis, obovatis, apice rotundatis, basi acutiusculis. Netherlands New Guinea: 18 km. southwest of Bernard Camp. Idenburg River, Brass 12680 (type), Feb. 1939, alt. 2150 m., mossy forest (high epiphyte; tuberous base small and bearing branched thorns; leaves concave; flowers greenish white with green apex; fruit red). Although the corolla in bud strongly suggests that of Hydnophytum alboviride, the species is probably closer to H. Vitis-Idaea. Both species have flowers few in number (i. e. in an inflorescence), the base immersed in a small alveolus, the calyx free and either shallowly lobed or minutely denticulate, and small leaves. They are readily distinguishable by various characters: in H. confertifolium the tuberous base is thorny with scattered spines, and the flower-bud is clavate, tapering at the apex; in H. Vitis-Idaea the corolla-tube is slender and the lobes form an elliptic outline at the end, as if the flower might be hypocrateriform when open; the pyrenes are different in outline, the one being oblong, the other obovate, although they belong to the same general type." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurélien Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Indeed, the diagnosis mention really tiny leaves... Quite strange for an Hydnophytum ! If really the autor made a mixup in the dimensions of the leaves, we can look at the herbarium. Do you know where the type is? And if effectively, the leaves aren't the same as the type description says, linnean classification is based on flowers... I'm perhaps wrong but, if stems, flowers and fruits are identical to the description by Merrill and Perry, it could be the same species. Maybe a variant, with a potential infraspecific range? New species based on foliage are not allways valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Indeed, the diagnosis mention really tiny leaves... Quite strange for an Hydnophytum ! If really the autor made a mixup in the dimensions of the leaves, we can look at the herbarium. Do you know where the type is? And if effectively, the leaves aren't the same as the type description says, linnean classification is based on flowers... I'm perhaps wrong but, if stems, flowers and fruits are identical to the description by Merrill and Perry, it could be the same species. Maybe a variant, with a potential infraspecific range? New species based on foliage are not allways valid. Hi Aurelien, not all plants are differentiated through the flowers. E.g. Nepenthes would shrink quite considerably, if you would restrict to floral characteristics. It's in fact the author's responsibility to select the right characteristic. Honestly, I do not know where the type is. Apparently, at that time it was not necessary to name a herbarium??? All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurélien Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 not all plants are differentiated through the flowers. E.g. Nepenthes would shrink quite considerably, if you would restrict to floral characteristics. You've got the good example! Nepenthes pitchers are so characteristic... Indeed, you must have a good overview of the genus to decide to name species after flowers or other parts; i.e. if vegetative parts are really variable, flowers are a good choice. On other hand, if flowers are, like in Nepenthes, really consistant in all the genus, other criterium is better. Here, leaves, tuber... But who have now a good overview of this genus ? Honestly, I do not know where the type is. Apparently, at that time it was not necessary to name a herbarium??? The diagnosis quote the locus classicus: Netherlands New Guinea: 18 km. southwest of Bernard Camp. Idenburg River, alt. 2150 m., mossy forest (high epiphyte; tuberous base small and bearing branched thorns; leaves concave; flowers greenish white with green apex; fruit red). And the type: Brass 12680 (type), Feb. 1939 I think we can localise the type with it. But I hope that type is well done and usable for comparison, and "alive"! I remember that a lot of type were losed in Bogor when the herbarium burnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 You've got the good example! Nepenthes pitchers are so characteristic... Indeed, you must have a good overview of the genus to decide to name species after flowers or other parts; i.e. if vegetative parts are really variable, flowers are a good choice. On other hand, if flowers are, like in Nepenthes, really consistant in all the genus, other criterium is better. Here, leaves, tuber... But who have now a good overview of this genus ? The diagnosis quote the locus classicus: Netherlands New Guinea: 18 km. southwest of Bernard Camp. Idenburg River, alt. 2150 m., mossy forest (high epiphyte; tuberous base small and bearing branched thorns; leaves concave; flowers greenish white with green apex; fruit red). And the type: Brass 12680 (type), Feb. 1939 I think we can localise the type with it. But I hope that type is well done and usable for comparison, and "alive"! I remember that a lot of type were losed in Bogor when the herbarium burnt... Hi Aurelien, the locus classicus is quite near to where I've been - that's clear What I do not know is, where the holotype is deposited. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurélien Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 What I do not know is, where the holotype is deposited. At Harvard University . http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/specimen_search.php?mode=details&id[]=68537 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 At Harvard University . http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/specimen_search.php?mode=details&id[]=68537 Nice Any plans of going there? All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurélien Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Not really... It's a little bit far from France or Germany! But I can ask if they can send scans of specimens. Some herbariums send easily scans or even sheets to other institutions who ask! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DischidiaGuy Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Forgive my ignorance on the identification subject here but I have seen in other plant families large variation within a species. Are not Hydnophytum separated by their flower parts? Is it possible they have the same flowers but just display a different phenotype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I have obtained photos of the type at Harvard that you want to see of Brass's 12680. The leaves are clearly not in cm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted February 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Very very interesting! This means, that the plant we found almost certainly is an undescribed species. Thank you very much, Frank. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrick Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 For explorers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taritatu_River Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurélien Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I have obtained photos of the type at Harvard that you want to see of Brass's 12680. The leaves are clearly not in cm.. Wonderfull Frank! Thanks for it! After all, if we ask, we can obtain a lot of things... This time, I agree with you Andreas: I was quite dubitative but now, I see clearly a different species! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Pulvirenti Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Has anyone considered that they could be the same species, but collected from different ends of their altitude range? In many species the ones growing at the higher parts of their range can have smaller leaves than the ones growing at the lower parts of their range. In other words an increase in the altitude means a decrease in leaf size. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted April 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I'll be returning to Doorman later this year and will look out again. Maybe we'll find this plant again. All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.