Talk:Nepenthes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nepenthes is within the scope of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance for WikiProject Plants assessment.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)