A long research
After meeting Martin Cheek in 2001 I made an internet
research. I started collecting all the data I could find, especially pictures,
about Nepenthes from Indochina or about anything that was going around among
growers with the name of N. thorelii, smilesii, anamensis and kampotiana; Three
of them are very popular Indochinese species, but after all still mostly
unknown. What came out from my research, a long and difficult one considering
that there's not much around about the argument, was already surprising me.
Jan Schlauer, another very
well known carnivorous plant taxonomist, sending to the international cp
discussion list the following email gave me the basic instruments to go on with
my research:
The "indigenous"
species (and loci classici plus some distribution data) are:
N. thorelii (Lecomte, 1909): type from VN (
N. anamensis (Macfarlane, 1908): type from VN, also known from KH & TH,
apparently confined to highland situations, some plants in cultivation under
this name are correctly identified (most are wrongly labeled N. mirabilis).
N. mirabilis: type from VN, known from LA (
N. ampullaria: type from
N. gracilis: type from
N. smilesii (Hemsley, 1895): type and only known collection
from northern TH (
No species of Nepenthes is known (to me) from MM (
N. sanguinea and N. benstonei are known from northernmost Malaysia, fairly
close to the Thai border. I would not be too surprised if one of these (or
both) was discovered in TH but no record is known to me.
Me: What do they look like?
N. anamensis does look like some gracilis/hirsuta hybrid, and it is
difficult to distinguish from these. The inflorescence is usually long and
narrow.
N. thorelii (especially the lower pitchers) looks like a N. rafflesiana
hybrid.
The more widespread species just look like their representatives from
other parts of their respective ranges.
(...) In spite of a rather large geographical distance (N. anamensis was
described from
Then the pictures that I found
on the web (they were carefully collected here: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/rafflesiana/album?.dir=89ff&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos) confirmed the
suspect: the 95 % of plants going around labeled “N. thorelii” are in fact N.
smilesii (or what M. Cheek calls "N. smilesii"). Sometimes they even
seem the same clone that I had originally bought!! In a couple of cases N.
smilesii was also labeled “kampotiana”
or “anamensis”. You can also find a lot of pics of N. “anamensis” and
“thorelii” here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/Nepenthes.html, where the N.
“anamensis” pics are mostly N. mirabilis and the N. “thorelii” pics are mostly
N. smilesii (again, what M. Cheek calls "N. smilesii").
N. anamensis = N. smilesii
When you read Schlauer's words
you too maybe have the suspect that his N. anamensis description and
distribution data match perfectly with N. smilesii (please note: N. smilesii is
the plant that you probably just bought as N. “thorelii”, the same plant that
I've seen growing on the Thai highlands, see the maps).
It's strange that, for what
he's concerned, N. smilesii is just a dubious taxon maybe conspecific with N.
mirabilis, while M. Cheek identified the so widespread plant - in cultivation
and in the wild - as N. smilesii.
(Actually a variety or form of
N. mirabilis exists, that is called “variety/form smilesii”. And I think that
brought a lot of confusion. Harald Weiner in 1985 and Uwe Westphal in 2000,
both horticulturists, used this name in their catalogues. But it’s odd that
someone decided to register a variety of N. mirabilis when this species is the
most variable on earth. There should be tens of registered varieties. Even more
strange when you think that the N. mirabilis var. smilesii pics are usually
showing just a red N. mirabilis)
The problem is that the first
and only description of N. smilesii is a little too
short, without drawings or other data, nor anyone was ever able to find "
"Marcello, the
description of N. smilesii is not the important thing. Often old descriptions
are too brief to be much use in applying a name. The type specimen itself is
usually what is most important in deciding on the application of a name to a
species, and I've looked at that of N. smilesii.
In brief, in works of this sort, first you have to define the limits of your
species. This was not previously done correctly for indo-china, in my view.
Once you have defined your species, you can then go about working out what is
the correct name for them. As far as I'm concerned, the most widespread species
of Nepenthes in Indo-china and the one present e.g. at Phu Krudung, which has
been given many names, either properly or improperly, including N. thorelii, N.
anamensis etc etc is correctly N. smilesii."
I also found out that, while
it's still impossible to find Baw Saw, the name Nam Kawng (nam means
water) simply indicates the river Kawng, the thai name for...the
So, are N. anamensis and
smilesii the same plant? Yes, they are. Mr. Cheek realized that N. smilesii was
described with this name at first by Hemsley in the 1895 (being at Kew, the type specimen of N. smilesii was easy to reach
and identify for Martin, who works there), and then the name
"anamensis" followed, in the 1908 used by Macfarlane. This explains
why Martin is using the name "smilesii" and not
"anamensis", the former being not valid anymore. That is also the
reason why in two thai herbariums (see next section, "The Trip") you can't find
any trace of N. anamensis but just a lot of N. smilesii, found and identified
with that name since the far 1948!
The N. smilesii chronology
1895: Hemsley describes on the
Kew Bulletin a plant from
1908: the same plant is found
again in
1928: Danser, observing a
specimen at Kew labeled N. smilesii (which species was he actually looking
at?), decides that it’s nothing but a form of N. mirabilis. Many years later
Cheek & Jebb will start suspecting that this is untrue. But in the mean
time not only the species rank of N. smilesii was forgotten and substituted by
N. anamensis, but its name was "unburied" and officially linked to a
N. mirabilis form.
1985: Harald Weiner presents
in his catalogue a plant called N. mirabilis var. smilesii. That name, its real
identity, the poor Hemsley and the so widespread taxon are from now on, both in
cultivation and in taxonomy, part of the limbo of the confusion and of the
forgotten people and things. In the same year Weiner also lists in his
catalogue a plant called N. mirabilis var. anamensis, so that even that name is
from now on linked, by most growers, to a mere variety of N. mirabilis.
2001: Martin Cheek (personal
communication and, in 2004, herbarium data in Bangkok, see following chapter)
saves the honour of the poor Hemsley and finds out, without going to "Baw
Saw, Nam Kawng", how the species that is so widespread in the wild and in
cultivation is not N. thorelii, and not even a form of N. mirabilis, neither
its real name is N. anamensis but…ta-daam, N. smilesii!
While it's now more clear how
and when the confusion between N. smilesii and mirabilis/anamensis started,
it's still unclear how and when N. smilesii entered in cultivation labeled as
N. thorelii.
What’s on the books
Here you can read the few lines
regarding N. anamensis, thorelii and smilesii, taken from the book "A
skeletal revision of Nepenthes", by M. Jebb & M. Cheek (1997). This
section was added to “A long research” much later (March 2005) compared to the rest
of the chapter, so maybe in the previous sections you’ve read something that
looks a little bit disconnected with what follows. What we see in this document
is:
-the plants on Phu Kradung are
still called N. anamensis. It’s just the 1997 and Martin Cheek will start
calling them N. smilesii three years later. One location in the south of
Thailand is given for this species, but there are good possibilities that the
plants in the south belong to new, undescribed species, even if closely related
to N. thorelii and smilesii.
-The description of N.
thorelii opens a new nightmare. Guys, this species - its botanic, legal,
official description - is very much like the description of N. anamensis
(smilesii)! And in fact what M. Cheek says here is that these species are still
difficult to distinguish. Let’s hope that this problem has been solved after
the 1997! One thing is sure: what goes around in most Nepenthes collection
under the name “N. thorelii” is infact N. smilesii. Most of those plants
originally came from Phu Kradung, the most easy-to-reach and touristic national
park of Thailand, where N. smilesii can be found. What we would need is to see
the real N. thorelii in its natural habitat, at the location where the type was
collected. And with this document we have a good possibility: the site where
the N. thorelii specimen used for the botanic description has been found,
“Guia-Toan, Lo-thieu, Ti-tinh”, in Vietnam. Please
someone go there and see what you find!!
-N. kampotiana/geoffrayi is
considered here probably a synonym of N. anamensis, while by personal
communications in December 2007 Martin will tell me how N. kampotiana is
probably a species on itself, the same plant you find in Trat,
then going on along the coast until Kampot and then keeping going straight up
to southern
