|
Post by roraima on Mar 7, 2015 2:49:29 GMT -5
Thanks very much everyone!! Lloyd: Thanks! These Neps have become my favorite little buggers. Flytrap: Up close they are so cute but just a little sinister as well Vraev: Thanks! It's great to see you around again, would love to see some pics of your plants. Cory: I totally agree, my seed grown macrophylla is one of my most vigorous Nepenthes seedlings from a variety of species. Thus far my SG lowii is a faster grower than my lowii clone from AW. I remember admiring a pic of your SG macrophylla from one of your posts, I would love to see some more pics
|
|
|
Post by roraima on Feb 1, 2016 22:08:44 GMT -5
It's been awhile since I last updated this thread, here's a very quick update for now. This is the latest pitcher on the SG N. macrophylla just starting to colour up, taken about a month ago. There's also an AW inermis in the background.
|
|
|
Post by H2O on Feb 2, 2016 1:04:38 GMT -5
I recognize this little guy
|
|
|
Post by vraev on Feb 2, 2016 3:43:08 GMT -5
Fantastic man. That little guy is progressing pretty fast by the looks of it.
|
|
|
Post by roraima on Feb 2, 2016 14:03:00 GMT -5
H2O: Thanks for mac sitting it's great to know my babies are under the best of care Vraev: Thank you for the kind words! How's that awesome macrophylla of yours? I would love to see some recent pics of that stunning plant.
|
|
|
Post by vraev on Feb 2, 2016 21:12:51 GMT -5
H2O: Thanks for mac sitting it's great to know my babies are under the best of care Vraev: Thank you for the kind words! How's that awesome macrophylla of yours? I would love to see some recent pics of that stunning plant. I actually took a pic yesterday of the newest pitcher. Will post it up later tonight.
|
|
|
Post by vraev on Feb 2, 2016 23:47:50 GMT -5
H2O: Thanks for mac sitting it's great to know my babies are under the best of care Vraev: Thank you for the kind words! How's that awesome macrophylla of yours? I would love to see some recent pics of that stunning plant. I actually took a pic yesterday of the newest pitcher. Will post it up later tonight. I just posted an update in my thread. Check it out. cheers.
|
|
|
Post by roraima on Feb 11, 2016 1:08:51 GMT -5
I've been observing something mildly interesting (for a plant nerd) about this latest macrophylla pitcher. You might notice in my last picture update what appears to be a water droplet on one side of the back wall of the inner pitcher. Well here is a pic of the same pitcher from today more than a month later, the "droplet" is still there. Well I suspect it's actually a very stable droplet of nectar/exudate as it's very viscous. Anyways it's always interested me how Nepenthes species who's pitcher morphology is highly adapted to functioning as a tree shrew toilet as an adult, might adapt to presumably catch prey(?) as a juvenile...unless of course they're visited by baby tree shrews.
|
|
|
Post by vraev on Feb 11, 2016 15:09:55 GMT -5
Part of the differences could be due to "lowers" vs "uppers". I would think that lowii uppers are the absolute adaptation to act as the tree shrew waste disposal facility. Similar to how ampullaria basal pitchers are more adapted to break down detritus and leaf litter. On the other hand, the lowers in these species (incl macrophylla) are relatively smaller and more adept at their insectivorous nature. It is natural to assume that an only "waste" vs "insectivorous" adaptation may not be too successful for these plants. Smaller pitchers / heck even bigger pitchers are heavily picked on for their liquid/cargo content in the wild. It is often difficult to find any lowers in the wild. It happens more with some species than others (could be due to wild life differences on the respective mountains). Hence, for the most part, the plant needs to grow rapidly to have bigger and tougher pitchers. Lowii uppers are super super tough. It is one of the most prolific plants in its range occurring everywhere. The successful strategy of having tough uppers which can withstand birds and other critters from pecking at them and being able to digest shrew waste has perhaps been honed for a lot longer than something like macrophylla which has relatively adapted to that strategy recently ? Anyways, it is definitely interesting. Perhaps the original species that initially was just an insectivorous plant has been lost through evolution and these "toilet" pitcher plants have outcompeted/outpaced them. Clearly it seems to be a successful strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 12, 2016 19:34:54 GMT -5
Hi roraima - That's cool! It definitely looks like the type of exudation you see from extra floral nectaries. Have you poked with it a needle or forceps yet? Was it viscus? Have you tasted it? The droplets that form on the "fangs" of N. bicalcarata are quite tasty! Hi vraev - I completely agree with your assessment! Species like N. lowii and N. ephippiata are well adapted to luring mountain tree shrews, to obtain their scat. Whereas, despite the rudimentary work suggesting that N. macrophylla is largely adapted for the same purpose, I suspect the species is at least using a hybrid strategy along with arthropod capture. The support for N. macrophylla being a fecal feeder (coprophagia) is not strong, nor is the peristome conducive to being an encouraging perch for arboreal mammals. Given the apparent ubiquity of Tupaia montana in the mountains of Borneo, I would suspect you could find evidence of their fecal material in many of the co-occuring Nepenthes species as they raid nectaries as an easy source of sugar. And don't get me started on the supposition of N. ampullaria being largely a detritivore... Sadly, a surprising amount of the "science" that goes into studying carnivorous plants would be tossed out as poorly controlled, or for poor methodological technique were it done on nearly any other group of plants.
|
|
|
Post by roraima on Feb 13, 2016 3:41:56 GMT -5
Apoplast with all due respect, I would not call the work done on N. macrophylla's adaptation to fecal feeding by Tupaia montana "rudimentary" or "not strong at all". Jonathan Moran's interesting work "Tuning of color contrast signals to visual sensitivity maxima of tree shrews" : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3493410/Is just one example of a novel and sophisiticated scientific approach being applied to these very questions. I don't think it's wise to be so sure how much one knows about any of this.
|
|
|
Post by Maiden on Feb 13, 2016 6:41:36 GMT -5
Very nice pictures Guy ! I really like the color. Keep posting
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Feb 13, 2016 9:52:00 GMT -5
Hi roraima - No offense taken at all. The cornerstone of modern science is challenging findings with reasoned arguments and robust debate! This is what science is all about, and one of my favorite parts about it! It's why I used to frequent the ICPS forum to chat directly with some of the authorities. I do disagree with you about the wisdom involved in asserting what the limitations of the currently published work are. That is important to keep in mind for anyone exploring the data that underlies what can rapidly become "common knowledge" in this hobby. We are all excited by how unusual these plants are, and can be too accepting of findings that further the view of that they are even more unusual. All that said, I am familiar with the paper you linked to (thanks for including the link, that's useful for all!), and I do consider the study to be rudimentary, or preliminary, or exploratory, or whichever term you like for early stage work. I do not find it to be a particularly clear pattern or conclusive. There is nothing wrong with that. Though it is likely to be at least part of the reason that this particular manuscript ended up in journal with such a low impact factor. Indeed it was published as a short communication only. All of this suggests the authors themselves likely recognize this is preliminary work. I don't know if it has been expanded upon, but for now that is how it should be approached. The patterns one would expect are not clear. As the authors note, N. rajah is known to attract a range of mammals to obtain nutrients, and yet it is this species that stood out at the one with the greatest contrast, which the authors describe as tuning to attract tree shrews. That seems somewhat contradictory. There is also issue that N. lowii has by far has the greatest area in peak visual range for tree shrews, yet it's contrast is low. This could be a trade off - you don't need as much contrast if you have greater area devoted to signaling, but we don't know that from this work. Lastly, this work is neither experimental (no manipulations were done to either the plants or tree shrews), and I would argue that it is not well controlled in that only one anticipated insect trapping species was examined. This leaves me with a number questions about the importance of the color spectra they are studying in application, and what the likelihood is of a Nepenthes species ending up with the colors they are studying by chance, especially for for species that are not strongly divergent in either regard like N. macrophylla. Despite all of my concerns with the work, I am not impugning the scientists who did the study (there are plenty of studies out there on CP that far more seriously bother me). I am sure they have heard everything I have said here before from reviewers during the likely multiple rounds of submissions to scientific journals. Again, it seems to be very early stage work. That's how science goes. The danger is for people to take such cloudy patterns and preliminary results to be hard fact and well worked out results. They are not. They may be someday. As I said, I don't know if this work has been expanded upon. That is enough of a preliminary pattern to use as early data in securing a grant for expanded study, so there may be more unpublished data those scientists have collected. But from what I have available to me, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that there is no evidence that N. macrophylla is using anything more than a hybrid strategy in terms of it's use of mammalian scat and arthropod nutrients. And that's really all I am trying to say. Yours is a very nicely grown plant! In fact, it's hearing about your and Varun's plants that made me think it would be worthwhile to keep an eye out for one myself. I'm still curious if the nectar tastes good.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Feb 13, 2016 21:00:28 GMT -5
There's a real art to judging the worth of scientific studies. The amount of error, bias and fraud is astounding.
|
|
|
Post by vraev on Feb 14, 2016 3:31:45 GMT -5
Absolutely true Lloyd. In fact that is part of the training in Grad school... critiquing scientific papers. Definitely there is an art to it.
Bear in mind guys whatever I have mentioned or will mention is more my personal opinions based on observations rather than actual scientific study of these plants. An experienced field botanist may totally think my inferences are complete bull. However, I do agree with Apo that the particular article in question isn't too convincing. Sensitivity / contrast of the visual signature of a tree shrew to pitcher insides isn't really very convincing in my opinion. There are a variety of other factors (some even with aspects of visual contrast of pitchers) that can influence why tree shrews are attracted to pitchers. However, a more thorough study of the tree shrew behaviour/diet/terretorial patterns need to be recorded before we can actually make a true judgement.
In terms of the distinction between lowii perhaps being further adapted to be a fecal feeder, my inference was from the simple observation of comparing pitcher morphology and structure. Don't quote me on it, but the glandular/waxy zone distribution of lowii uppers are drastically different compared to macrophylla or other species. The constricted nature of the lowii upper with predominantly only the waxy zone and a minimal glandular zone, the morphology of the pitcher opening and the reflexed lid which is extremely convenient for shrews to deposit their droppings directly into the pitcher, among others is a fascinating adaption that may be just too convenient to be by chance rather than "natural selection". On the other hand, rajah seems to be in the transition stage?.. shrews can still fall into the open rajah pitchers and perhaps one of those shrews was the victim in those early reports of rodents found dead in rajah pitchers. Yet again, the reflexed lid, the wide opening, again very convenient to collect droppings from their mammal visitors. On the other hand, macrophylla definitely has to be a very uncomfortable vertical grasp for the shrew. The waxy/glandular zones are a lot more conventional and similar to the more insectivorous species. It is based on these observations that I feel that clearly we are witnessing the transformation of these plants as they adapt to alternative means to obtain their required nutrients.
|
|