Quote:
Originally Posted by NepNut
oic... thanks for the explaination, Cello. Does that mean there's still a chance for N. kongkandana to lose it's species status??
|
Nope, or at least not more than N. suratensis
The thing is: Cheek discovered kongkandana in 2000 and after 10 years he still didn't describe it. I can't describe it unless Cheek says he's not interested anymore, otherwise it would mean stealing his discovery. But Cheek is famous for taking a loooooooong time to do everything.
Plus, N. kongkandana is a twin of N. kerrii as much as N. suratensis is a twin of N. andamana. If one day the scientists will decide that these twins are actually the same species, we will lose N. kongkandana (if it will have been described in the mean time) and N. suratensis, because they have been described AFTER their corresponding twin, and so they would become synonims. I hope that was clear
BUT right now we are at a stage, in Nepenthes taxonomy, where if someone decides to consider suratensis or kongkandana as synonims, many other species would fall. So right now the wise taxonomists are trying to find a better way to classify the genus, including subspecific ranks (varieties, subspecies etc), so that the "inbetween" taxons like our twins will not disappear but they will find their place in the new classification.
In case Cheek says "I think kongkandana is the same as kerrii, so I will not describe it anymore", I will do it, so that we are in a stable situation where all the taxons in the game have been described, and if any change in taxonomy happens in the next 10-100 years, these taxons (probably extinct) will only probably fall in different ranks (varieties, subspecies etc) but they won't get lost and in the mean time they will be more easily identified, distributed, protected etc, because they have a name.