It’s been a while-years- since I’ve written a lengthy taxonomic article on this blog. Unsurprisingly, it will be Nepenthes focused. 😉
If you follow me on my other social media, you know that I have just returned from a botanical expedition in Sulawesi where I have observed almost all Nepenthes species from that Indonesian island. One species I couldn’t see was the the poorly known Nepenthes maryae, a species that has picked up my interest since it was first described a few years ago. I intend to see the species by myself in the very foreseeable future but in the meanwhile, it is my pleasure to share with you all some of the findings and pictures of the excellent Jaehan Bae who very recently relocated and documented Nepenthes maryae at its locus classicus. With his permission, and as an introduction to a formal paper that will be published later, here is a humble blog post that will help most of you to have a better understanding of the species that is N. maryae. Before, we dive into the mossy forests of Central Sulawesi, I would also like to extend my thanks to enthusiast and plant lover Bart Jeurninck who also contributed to my interest in this species by sharing infos and thoughts with me a few years back.
Botanical history
–2004, When I first started the hobby, the only toothy species from Sulawesi (most of you know that toothy Nepenthes are, to many Nepenthes enthusiasts, a class of their own 😉 was Nepenthes hamata. This spectacular species was in fact nearly called N. dentata and was first mentioned in Shigeo Kurata‘s legendary Nepenthes of Mount Kinabalu (p. 11. The name -then a Nomen Nudum– was used in a table with the mention that it was “Not yet established“. In 1984, two names were published almost at the same time (with only 21 days apart): N. dentata (then not a Nomen Nudum anymore) by Kurata and N. hamatus by John Turnbull and Anne Middleton. The latter would take priority (let’s not open this can of worms now…) and was after that corrected as “hamata” (the genus Nepenthes being feminine). A name that has since been widely used in both horticultural circles and published literature. Please note, that at the time, the concept of N. hamata was not cut clear as the description was based on material (paratypes) that not only included N. hamata but also what is now known as N. nigra, another toothy species described much later in 2011, and possible hybrids (between hamata and nigra). In other words, based on the “hamatus” description by Turnbull and Middelton, this species concept could be understood as fairly large ranging from the plants that exhibits flange-like peristome ribs (how we understand N. hamata these days) to plants with much more discrete toothy peristome (N. nigra). This issue would later be resolved in 2020 (see point below).
-In 2005, well known explorer and Nepenthes specialist, Chien Lee announced online that a few months before (September 2004), he discovered a toothy Nepenthes with red hairy lower pitchers in an undisclosed mountain of Central Sulawesi. This spectacular find (that would contribute to seal my love for the genus) was at the time interpreted as a variant of Nepenthes hamata, expanding thus the concept of the species as, what would then be know as Nepenthes “red hairy hamata“, also differs from N. hamata in different aspects (upper pitchers peristome, absence/presence of wings, leaf shape…). On a taxonomic point of view (for the general public), the N. hamata concept was now as messy as ever as it now encompasses material of hamata, nigra, hybrids of these two, and now Nepenthes “RHH”.
In 2011, Nepenthes nigra was published. Shortly referred to as “N. sp. Sulawesi” (in 2010) it was named after the dark color of the pitchers and stem. Also a member of the N. tentaculata group and also with teeth, it is basically a neurasthenic 😆 version of N. hamata (don’t get me wrong. I love N. nigra) . With this description, the concept of N. hamata became a bit clearer to the general public at it excluded the nigra material from the concept of N. hamata. However, Nepenthes “red hairy hamata” and the regular N. hamata were still part of a same concept. As far as published literature went, N. hamata was still a rather hazy concept base on mixed material that would require to be cleared.
-In 2016, Nepenthes maryae was described in a 4 page paper by Jebb & Cheek from material collected in Central Sulawesi in 2000 by several botanists including Mary Mendum (also an outstanding botanical illustrator) after which the species was named. The species concept and subsequent description and botanical illustration were based on upper pitchers, climbing stem and a male inflorescence. The rest of the vegetative parts being unknown including, sadly, the lower pitchers. The paper ruled out the fact that N. maryae could be a hybrid because of the presence of very short hairs under the lid, something unique (then) among the species of the N. tentaculata group (that we taxonomists also call tentaculatae section). Jebb & Cheek wondered by the way in their paper if those hairs (like those of “N. macfarlanei” as this taxon was understood then) could contribute to a “flick of a lid mechanism” in a similar fashion to what has been observed with the waxy coating of plates present on the lid underside of N. gracilis by Bauer et al. (2012) (a feature that would also be confirmed in N. pervillei in a paper published in 2024). I have to say that, at the time, in 2016, I looked at the description of N. maryae with a fairly amount of circumspection as I grew tired of species described with a short paper often based on scant and incomplete material without the back up of field information and photographs, something that was less and less forgivable to me in the age of internet. Recent years of informal exploration from both pitcher plants enthusiasts and poachers (yes, sadly) have proven me wrong and I certainly owe an apology to Matthew Jebb and Martin Cheek who rightly interpreted the material of N. maryae. Still, in 2016, N. maryae remained a very poorly understood species with unknown lower pitchers and this would remain true for ten additional years.
-In 2020, Nepenthes diabolica was named. N. “red hairy hamata” was, at last, scientifically separated from N. hamata, something that had become more and more obvious for researchers and enthusiasts alike since its discovery. I was lucky to be one of the co-authors of the paper (and actually, I was the once who ignited the description process by asking Chien Lee, in 2016, if I could work on describing it). In the same paper, we cleared the taxonomic concept of N. hamata by providing a lectotypification: the originally designated holotype by Turnbull & Middleton was never relocated (and very probably never deposited) but a large collection of Turnbull & Middleton specimens was eventually uncovered and offered to Melbourne Botanical Garden. Among these were the collection of N. “hamatus“! One of them was chosen to be the new type specimen (= lectotypification). So that’s how the name hamata was stabilized. From now, we would have a clear scientific separation between the plant that produces the spectacular flange-like peristome (N. hamata), the one that displays the bulbous lower pitchers with red indumentum and upper pitchers with lesser teeth (N. diabolica), the one that has a humbler toothy peristome (N. nigra) and the hybrid material.
–Since its initial discovery in 2004, Nepenthes diabolica has been regularly and severely poached alas and I have always wondered if naming it had made things worse. It’s hard to know. Since 2020, I have seen, in social media (mainly Facebook), plants of N. diabolica offered for sale. Sad vision of plants ripped from the wild that would likely die quite soon after reception, I thought. Among these plants, some of us (including Nepenthes enthusiast Bart Jeurninck that I have thanked at the beginning of this article) have noticed clearly different plants of N. diabolica. Those had different mouth shape, indumentum and even leaf shape. I remember wild plants offered by the dozens by poachers or resellers of poached plants (that’s the same thing) on social media (the dreaded Alfie Chiang comes to mind). Some of these plants made it into cultivation and are now under good care. Whether the buyers know the plants were poached or not is another topic that I don’t want to tackle here (feel free to do it in the comment section). From time to time, I stumbled onto a few photos of these strange Nepenthes diabolica, sometimes photographed I situ. These plants, as you might have guessed, were actually candidates to be the enigmatic N. maryae and in time they eventually were labeled as such by some growers and collectors. Obviously, the fact that poachers, and unscrupulous resellers were the ones who first got their hands on this species didn’t help researchers as it was very difficult, if not impossible, to get reliable information on these plants whereabouts in order to document them. After all, had these poachers and sellers been willing to simply give the name of the mountain where these “maryae” had been photographed (and ripped), it would have been enough to say: “Yes, N. maryae has been relocated and this is how the lower pitchers look like and look at all the new information we have about this elusive species“. But of course, greed and money, and the feeling to have something the others don’t have (what I like to call the pathetic Golum syndrome) were far stronger than the will to contribute to science. So, for a few years, to several of us (an increasing number actually), it seemed more than likely that these strange Nepenthes diabolica plants, somehow intermediate between N. tentaculata and N. diabolica (the hybrid theory was summoned but quickly ruled out), were a good match for N. maryae. But it was still after all, pending field studies, just a surmise. In 2023, in his monograph, Nepenthes The Tropical Pitcher Plants (volume 2), carnivorous plant expert (and long time friend) Stewart McPherson used photos of putative N. maryae plants expertly grown by renowned grower Jeff Schafer, making thus a direct link between these plants and the holotype of N. maryae. The photos of the cultivated plants showed lower and upper pitchers, the picture of the latters seemingly being a good match for Jebb & Cheek’s holotype. All we needed now was a qualified botanist or a dedicated enthusiast to go and find N. maryae in the wild, preferably at its type location, to confirm this theory.
Nepenthes maryae formally identified
–2026: I am just back from Sulawesi where I have studied N. hamata and N. diabolica in situ (check my Instagram and Facebook for loads of pictures!). I couldn’t make it to N. maryae locus classicus sadly but a new generation of explorers; fitter, bolder is now progressively taking the spotlight, something I am watching with happiness and admiration. While I was just going down from the mountain where I had observed N. diabolica, I was greeted by Korean explorer Jahean Bae who has been roaming the mountains of South East Asia for a few years already. He has seen N. diabolica, N. hamata and N. nigra previously and had attempted to find N. maryae at the type location the year before. He failed then but was about to try again a few days after our meeting. As I am typing this article, Jaehan has sent me infos and loads of pictures and we can now confirm that these strange Nepenthes diabolica plants are indeed the same thing than the species described in 2016 as N. maryae, a plant which has now been observed and fully documented (not your typical blurry and fragmented poacher video clip!) at its type location by someone, Jaehan, whose sole ambition, was to share info with everyone and help science progresses.
In time, a formal paper will be published to provide a better understanding of N. maryae and its relatives (N. diabolica, N. hamata, N. nigra). I can nonetheless already give you a few hints: N. maryae seems to be an intermediate between N. tentaculata and N. diabolica, maybe a sister species to the latter, a fairly large species with a rhomboid mouth, different indumentum (covering all parts of the plants vs pitchers only in diabolica) and with a greater number of teeth in lower pitchers. Upper pitchers are different, as are leaves. Both species also don’t exactly share the same ecology.
More information later as I said. It’s now more than time to enjoy the photos. Thanks tons Jaehan! I’m sure the carnivorous plant community will be grateful.
[Disclaimer: The content in this RSS feed is automatically fetched from external sources. All trademarks, images, and opinions belong to their respective owners. We are not responsible for the accuracy or reliability of third-party content.]
Source link
