Talk:Nepenthes

Untitled
Nepenthes may catch small vertebrates (I have seen them catch frogs), but I very much doubt ferrets form even an occasional part of their diet! I think this is one of those extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary evidence, or at least a reference of some sort... polypompholyx 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See: Giant meat-eating plants prefer to eat tree shrew poo By Matt Walker Editor, Earth News BBC Wednesday, 10 March 2010 -- wloveral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.129.128.7 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

N.viking
There is such species as N.viking!!


 * If there is such a taxon as N. viking, please provide the source and authority: preferably the reference to the original description from the literature. polypompholyx 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Species list
I'm a little worried about the length of the species list. As it stands, it composes about 2/3 of the article length. People expecting a long read will get three sections down and find that the rest is composed of a single long list and be dissapointed. Here are some options:


 * Move it to a seperate page, as has been done with List of Pinguicula species and List of Drosera species
 * Just delete the list and add a link to the Nepenthes classification page, which has a species list, though not in alphabetical order.
 * Leave the list on this page but put it into columns to make it more compact
 * Delete the list from this page but add the Nepenthes species box templet

Thoughts? --NoahElhardt 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone for columns. How does it look now? Mgiganteus1 12:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! I like the columns. NoahElhardt 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you added the nepenthes template to the bottom of this page, in all practicality repeating information listed in the article. I know its nice, but we may want to cut one or the other for the sake of brevity. I do like how you've expanded the nepenthes box though! --NoahElhardt 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

wording
In "Morphology and function":


 * Prey usually consists of insects, but the largest species (N. rajah, N. merrilliana, etc.) may occasionally catch small vertebrates, possibly accidentally.

The phrase "possibly accidentally" seems to me to imply intent on the part of the plant. I think it would make more sense to talk about whether these plants are able to get some benefit from the trapped vertebrates, rather than speculating on what the plant might have intended to catch. I'm going to remove "possibly accidentally", but if anyone has info on what happens to plants after they ingest vertebrates, feel free to add it in. --Eloil 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point! I think the article meant to state that the plants' morphophysiological characteristics indicate that the ideal prey, either by evolution or design, is meant to be insects, but that organisms outside of the "target group" do get caught occasionaly. I'm not sure how to word this better though, and I really don't think its that necessary. I would expect that vertebrates end up being digested, albeit slowly, though I wouldn't be able to cite any sources. --NoahElhardt 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Youtube video of a mouse falling into a pitcher and the results a few weeks later, tremendous plant growth and undigested fur remaining in pitcher.  and   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.10.68 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

more info for the novice viewer/student
The work presented thus far on this genus is very good. My first thoughts were that it isn't readily obvious that the plant is in fact, a carnivorous plant (as it is buried in the third or fourth sentence). Do you think that this information should be presented at the very beginning of the dissertation?

My second thought is on the genus's distribution. I feel that the paragraph alluding to Tissue culture and CITES should expand with an explanation on the very limited habitats on a number of species. For example, N aristolchiodes and N clipeata. I am hoping through this, there is a greater appreciation and awareness on the status of endangerment due to specialty habitat loss...as is not so obvious in CITES designations. Flytrap canada 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the information on the plants carnivory to the first sentence, which is still a rather large and unwieldy sentence. Feel free to tinker with it more. Speaking of which, may I encourage you to Be Bold in updating pages? Unless you are suggesting a major or controversial change to a major or controversial article, always feel free to just jump in and make the change yourself. If someone doesn't like it, they'll revert it or say something. :)


 * You are right in that this article has several sections that would benefit from expansion. The section on carnivory is rather brief, and the mechanism could be expanded while other information (such as prey items, etc.) could be added. A lot of this info can be adapted from the in-depth Nepenthes rajah article. The genus' environmental status section could indeed be fleshed out, and I noticed that historical information is also lacking (Discovery, Victorian Era cultivation, proof of carnivory, etc.). I could add some of this info, but my specialty is more in the direction of the sticky rosetted plants, so I'd rather focus my attention there. --NoahElhardt 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nepenthaceae info
The article on Nepenthaceae had a decent amount of information on classification that was lost when it was merged with Nepenthes. Do you have any plans to integrate it into this article at some point? BTW, I like the new anatomical diagram! Good work. Maybe another diagram showing digestive zones would add to the article? --NoahElhardt 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only information I thought was useful in the Nepenthaceae article concerned the Caryophyllales in general and so that's where I put it. Regards, Mgiganteus1 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
As noted here, giving IPA pronunciations for scientific names can be problematic. If a guide to pronunciation is offered, it should reflect the regional pronunciation where the plant is native. See International Phonetic Alphabet for English for details. IPA pronunciation has been added for all the currently listed species within the genus Nepenthes; for the most part, these are straightforward, but most of those epithets derived from Bahasa Melayu (Malay) or Bahasa Indonesia adhere to the vowel intonation used by native speakers. Attenboroughii 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Geographical categories
Many of the species within the genus have been categorised as hailing from Oceania; I've been through the species pages and re-categorised a number of these to Asia. While Sulawesi is believed to be in Oceania by some and not by others since it lies east of the Wallace Line, I have not chosen to make this call (indeed, it's probably fair to include species from this region and the island of New Guinea in both). However, we should not labour under the misapprehension that Sumatra, Borneo or Peninsular Malaysia are part of Oceania. The Philippines are contested by some, but only for ethnographic reasons, and in this instance I'd like to suggest that we fall back on the Wallace Line definition and keep the Philippines firmly in Asia, since this is how most individuals regard the archipelago. This way, we have consensus within the genus, at least until any Wiki-wide decision is made. Attenboroughii (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FA?
On a casual read-through, I thought that this article is well-written and referenced and meets nearly all of the FA criteria. I was wondering if it might be worth a brief collaboration to get it to FA status? I think the main thing missing is a discussion of distribution/habitat and ecology, which would include the infauna (using summary style). Taxonomy/phylogeny is also an easy, short section to produce. Anything else? WikiProject Plants/Template has some good ideas. Think this is possible? It'd be great to have another FA in the CP project and I think this is the article closest to it among our higher priority articles. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, plus, I need a break from creating Drosera stubs and I need to learn more about Nepenthes. :-) Rkitko (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on it now... One thing I did want to ask was the info I removed in the description about the sword-shaped leaf blade really being the petiole. All that I've read doesn't seem to corroborate that. Was that an error or is there a better source? Also, tentative to do list below. --Rkitko (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To do

 * Distribution and habitat section
 * Ecology section (Nepenthes infauna, ecological connections to other species)
 * Taxonomy/phylogeny section
 * Add info in description:
 * Flower/seed subsection of description
 * Carnivory subsection of description
 * N. lowii and N. ampullaria info from protocarnivorous plant
 * Mention roots!
 * Mention biochemical secondary metabolites, etc.
 * Uses/cultivation combined section? (Needs refs)
 * Conservation

Good idea! :) Over the past year I've been working on a massive expansion of this article myself. The current draft exceeds 350 kb and will no doubt need to be split into around a dozen daughter articles. I've nearly finished expanding the "Morphology and function" section and this can be found in my sandbox (note that it's still not finished and needs to be thoroughly crosschecked!). To give an idea of the scope, here is the contents page from my draft (still needs a lot of shuffling):

1 Etymology 1.1 Vernacular names 2 Botanical history 2.1 Earliest discoveries 2.2 Cantharifera 2.3 Later discoveries 2.4 Scientific research 2.5 Decline and resurgence in interest 3 Morphology and function 3.1 Stem 3.2 Petiole and lamina 3.2.1 General morphology 3.2.2 Leaf base and attachment 3.2.3 Midrib and lamina apex 3.2.4 Venation 3.3 Tendrils 3.4 Pitchers 3.4.1 Dimorphism 3.4.2 Peristome 3.4.3 Lid 3.4.4 Wings 3.4.5 Venation and spur 3.4.6 Inner surface 3.4.7 Size 3.5 Inflorescence 3.5.1 Flowers 3.5.2 Fruits and seeds 3.6 Indumentum 3.7 Roots 4 Anatomy, microstructure, and biochemistry 4.1 Primary stem anatomy 4.2 Wood anatomy 4.3 Leaf anatomy 4.4 Pitcher anatomy 4.4.1 Peristome 4.4.2 Waxy zone 4.4.3 Digestive zone 4.5 Floral anatomy 4.6 Gland structure 4.6.1 Nectaries 4.6.2 Digestive glands 4.7 Pollen 4.8 Cytology 4.9 Biochemistry 5 Growth and development 5.1 Germination and early seedling growth 5.2 Stem and leaf development 5.3 Pitcher development 5.4 Inflorescence development 5.5 Dormancy 5.6 Growth habit and plant architecture 5.6.1 Epiphytes, lithophytes, and terrestrial plants 5.6.2 Apical and lateral growth 5.6.3 Alternative growth strategies 6 Reproductive biology 6.1 Dioecism 6.2 Pollination 6.3 Seed dispersal 6.4 Prevalence of sexes 7 Distribution 7.1 Altitudinal distribution 7.2 Phytogeography 7.3 Distribution patterns 7.4 Endemism 7.5 Sympatry 8 Environmental conditions 8.1 Temperature 8.2 Relative humidity 8.3 Light intensity 8.4 Soil pH and soil conductivity 9 Habitats 9.1 Seashore 9.2 Grassland, savannah, and shrubland 9.3 Tropical lowland rainforest 9.4 Heath forest 9.5 Peat swamp forest 9.5.1 Swamps, lakes, and streams 9.6 Montane forest 9.7 Montane grasslands and shrublands 9.8 Specialised habitats based on substrate 9.8.1 Limestone 9.8.2 Ultramafic substrates 9.8.3 Volcanic substrates 9.8.4 Sandstone 9.8.5 Granite 9.9 Secondary vegetation 10 Carnivory 10.1 Attraction of prey 10.1.1 Nectar 10.1.2 Scent 10.1.3 Colour 10.1.4 Illumination 10.1.5 Accidental attraction 10.1.6 Mimicry 10.2 Trapping and retention of prey 10.2.1 Pitfall traps 10.2.2 Flypaper traps 10.2.3 Lobster-pot traps 10.2.4 Inefficiency 10.3 Digestion of prey 10.3.1 Proteases 10.3.2 Esterases 10.3.3 Sugar hydrolases 10.3.4 Peroxidases 10.3.5 Ions 10.3.6 Free radicals 10.4 Absorption and distribution of nutrients 10.5 Prey spectrum 10.5.1 Vertebrate prey 10.5.2 Prey specialisation 10.6 Loss of carnivory 11 Interactions with organisms 11.1 Pitcher infauna 11.1.1 Food webs 11.1.2 Insects 11.1.3 Arachnids 11.1.4 Crustaceans 11.1.5 Nematodes 11.1.6 Amphibians 11.1.7 Microorganisms 11.1.8 Others 11.2 Mycorrhizal fungi 11.3 Mutualism with ants 11.3.1 N. bicalcarata and C. schmitzi 11.3.2 Other examples 11.4 Destructive relationships 12 Hybridisation 12.1 Natural hybrids 13 Evolution and systematics 13.1 Origin and palaeodistribution 13.1.1 Early hypotheses 13.1.2 Fossil pollen and molecular studies 13.1.3 Species diversity and lineages 13.2 Evolution of the Nepenthes plant 13.3 Recent speciation 13.3.1 Hybrid speciation 13.4 Phylogeny 13.5 Taxonomy 13.5.1 Species 13.5.2 Subspecies, varieties, and forms 14 Conservation 14.1 IUCN Red List 14.2 CITES 14.3 Threats 14.3.1 Habitat destruction 14.3.2 Over-collection 14.3.3 Natural disasters 14.4 Endangered species 15 Uses and folklore 15.1 Local beliefs 15.2 Medicinal uses 15.3 Source of water 15.4 Construction uses 15.5 Cooking rice 15.6 Other uses 15.7 Cultural depictions 16 Cultivation 16.1 Growing media 16.2 Environmental factors 16.3 Growing space 16.3.1 Windowsills 16.3.2 Terrariums 16.3.3 Greenhouses 16.3.4 Outdoors 16.4 Feeding and fertilising 16.5 Propagation 16.5.1 Cuttings 16.5.2 Seeds 16.5.3 Tissue culture 16.6 Manmade hybrids and cultivars 16.7 Botanical gardens

The new "Distribution and habitat" section is a very good start, though I think it would be better to cite specialist Nepenthes monographs in place of Barthlott et al. in most instances. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Massive expansion indeed! All I can say is... holy Nepenthes! Since this is your baby, I'll stand by and watch unless you need my help. Summary style is definitely going to be necessary, but I'd try to stick to a minimum number of sections for this article (FAs are meant to be comprehensive and not exhaustive). Acknowledged on the Barthlott reference use. I was using it mostly as a placeholder before I could check elsewhere for the same info. I just like using secondary sources like that since it exemplifies the kind of summary style articles we want to produce for FAs. Let me know if I can be of any help when you're ready to bring your draft "live" :-) Rkitko (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to wait for me - the sections you've added recently are great! Actually, I think it would be ideal if the main article and daughter articles were written in somewhat different styles - that way they won't be as repetitive. With regards to minimising the number of sections: I agree, and your "Distribution and habitat" section already encompasses at least 3 of mine: Distribution, Environmental conditions, and Habitats. It'll just be a matter of linking the daughter articles at the top of each section. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. I'm actually better at paraphrasing than I am writing my own material from many sources, so I suppose once you bring the daughter articles live, I can help with the summary style or anything else we need. Oh, and did you see this? Nepenthes bokor and Nepenthes thai were published. If I remember correctly, N. bokor was going to be published by Cheek but Mey got there first with N. bokorensis, so now it's a synonym. I have the pdf if you don't have access and can send it along if you need it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually know about this paper before. If you could email me the pdf that would be great. Thanks, mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this work?
It says "Some Nepenthes have developed unique, symbiotic relationships with prey, such as N. albomarginata, which almost exclusively traps termites yet produces nearly no nectar. Nepenthes albomarginata gains its name from the ring of white trichomes that are directly beneath the peristome. These trichomes—or "hairs"—are palatable to termites and will attract them to the pitcher. In the course of collecting the edible trichomes, many termites will fall into the pitcher, which is an acceptable loss to the termite colony for the food provided by the plant."

I don't get it: if the amount of food the plant recieves from the termites produces less food in the form of trichomes, than the termites will recieve less food than they lose, and if the amount of food the plant recieves from the termites produces more food in the form of trichomes, than the plant will recieve less food than it loses. This symbiotic relationship doesn't seem to add up: It's like two snakes constantly eating each others tails and growing bigger and bigger. Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the energetics of the relationship have been investigated. But put simply, I think it could be explained by thinking of all the nutrient and energetics inputs for both species involved. The Nepenthes photosynthesizes and also does get some nutrients from the soil. The termites are a population that get their food from many sources and individuals are always being replaced. Since I don't think this is explained in the reference, though, we can't exactly put that into the article. Rkitko (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not symbiotic
The first paragraph on the section on symbiosis seems to be incorrect. It states that the termites and the nepenthes have a symbiotic relationship. This didn't make much sense to me since they're eating each other. This can't really be symbiotic since either one or the other is going to come out ahead in terms of energy. I checked the reference, and it doesn't say anything about a symbiotic relationship, nor does it provide any evidence that the relationship is symbiotic. It appears to be a straight predator-prey relationship. (In a symbiotic relationship of mutual consumption if each participant gets a kind of nutrient which is otherwise unavailable. But that doesn't seem to be the case here). Anyway, I deleted the section, but then decided I was being a bit rash and I reverted. Maybe someone else could double-check my criticism and then make the appropriate changes. 128.54.3.210 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A bird was caught in one, according to BBC news website.
There is a new story of one bird caught wedged in a pitcher. It is on the bbc website: (link to story). They do have a photograph. They claim there is precisely one other known case of a bird in one of those pitchers in Germany. Apparently that was in "captivity" too (a cultivar). So the case is not unique. Still, should we wait for a third occurrence, before saying in the article that extremely rarely are able to catch a bird? What do you think? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nepenthes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707185305/http://www.vcps.au.com/journals/75_Mar_2005Public.pdf to http://www.vcps.au.com/journals/75_Mar_2005Public.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Size of the pitchers
The lower pitcher is usually smaller and upper pitchers are larger. I am a nepenthes grower.i have a couple of those already. I noticed that the upper pitchers are larger then the lower pitcher. I did fix the article, but if you have any questions please reply. Thanks User3749 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice by User3749: Someone undid my revision back. If you're that person,please explain why by posting a message here. User3749 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there were some who keep changing the size of upper pitchers vs. lower pitchers back. A few years back when I was new to this site I would repeatedly change it to generally larger, but many don't agree with this. This is reasonable because some Nepenthes species have lower pitchers that are larger than upper pitchers, but also some Nepenthes species that have upper pitcher larger than lower pitchers. Therefore I believe either wording won't be a general representation.

I am suggesting a new wording that doesn't specifically state whether the uppers are larger or smaller, but just that they are sized differently: "The upper or aerial pitchers are generally sized and colored differently..." that would basically solve this disagreement. Any opinions on this? User3749 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)