Talk:Carnivorous plant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Improvement drive

I was just tempted to revert 250,000 to 250 000 (as I originally had it, since 250,000 means 250.000 in most of Europe), but then thought, why bother? This'll sound like a troll, but FFS, an arguable comma is not what this article needs (nor most of the other micro-changes that have been made since I originally wrote it). It needs the following, if anyone can be bothered (and I'm afraid I haven't the time):

• Better referencing and footnotes, along the lines of the ones in all the recent featured articles.
• Better linking to the reams of other carnivorous plant category articles (including all the new Nepenthes ones that NepGrower has kindly created).
• The evolution and modelling sections are really dry and could do with some relevant images adding from Wikimedia Commons.
• The pop-culture sections is a boring list, and could do with work and illustrations.
• The cultivation section links to articles that don't exist, but which could easily be written.
• A section on nematode-capturing fungi (or preferably a link to a new article) would be nice.
• etc. polypompholyx 10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I managed to find the time :) The article is now fairly well referenced (although it could do with more). The other sections mentioned could still do with some work, and the last half of the article could really do with breaking up with some images. polypompholyx 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Original rewrite

I'm planning to rewrite this article so that it is something more interesting than a list of genera. Something along the lines of the following...

• Trapping mechanisms
• Classification
• Evolution
• Ecology
• Cultivation
• Pop culture polypompholyx

Just the evolution and ecology sections left. If anyone wants to plagiarise my website [1] or similar and add to these, feel free! polypompholyx

cool, that looks so much better. The image layout looks a bit odd to me, but that is probably my stupid res screen (1600x1200) nick 21:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. It could certainly do with some tarting up, expanding and prettifying with images, but I'll leave that to some other interested author! polypompholyx

Evolution section

I just reverted "assumed" to the orginal "deduced", in regard to what you can guess about the evolution of CP traps from their current structure (particularly the arrangement of xylem and phloem in the keel of Sarracenia spp). An assumption is what you presume about a situation, based on prior experience. The assumption here is that the vasculature of Sarracenia is similar in its ontogeny to other related plants; and that Sarracenia is subject to natural selection, both of which we can be fairly sure about. The inference that this structure evolved from the zipping up of a 'normal' leaf is a deduction, because it very likely follows from the assumptions. "Deduced" is far more appropriate than "assumed", although "hypothesised" would also be apposite. polypompholyx 13:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "speculated" would be most accurate :-) --ChadThomson 09:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Species

If you can interest, I have created a list of carnivorous plants taken by this database. --Kalumet Sioux 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are appended to the individual genera's entries already, but thanks for the link! polypompholyx 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Top Page

If it hasn't already, this article should be on the front page of wiki one of these days. Good work folks! --Kvuo 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. CodeCarpenter 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have sent it in for review, the first step of featured article status. If saffron can get in there, my venus flytrap can, too! CodeCarpenter 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep my eye on it to help address issues brought up by reviewers. I also need to read through it one of these days to make sure it is up-to-date and accurate. My guess is that it needs to have way more sources cited, at least before it is considered for FA status. --NoahElhardt 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Borderline carnivores

Greetings, all! I was hoping I could get your collective opinion on a proposition I have. Do you think it would be worthwhile to make the borderline carnivores section its own article (keep what's there, link to "main article," and expand upon the content that already exists) if I could substantially expand it or should I simply expand the section? Also, I've never really delved into the naming conventions, though I know most common name usually rules. There are three terms that can describe these kinds of plants:

• "Borderline carnivore" (Google hits: 94, most of which are wikipedia pages or in the context of vegetarianism); or "Borderline carnivorous" (Google hits: 19)
• "Protocarnivorous" (Google hits: 59)
• "Subcarnivorous" (Google hits: 45)

Most of the academic literature (and there isn't much!) speaks of "protocarnivorous" plants and doesn't mention "borderline carnivores." So I'm more prone to use protocarnivorous, but I want an objective opinion from any and all of you. Thanks in advance! --Rkitko 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rkitko,
Protocarnivores should be placed in there own article including moving them from the List_of_carnivorous_plants and leaving behind a note along the lines of "see protocarnivorous" or has been moved to. Borderline carnivores simply put should not be used. Subcarnivorous would mean that the plant or plants in question are below or leaving carnivory. Proto or prot from the Greek pro meaning before implies that the plant is entering carnivory as seems to be the case with most borderlines. In short, lump them all into proto and sort them to sub as evidence becomes availably to show that they are evolving non carnivory. Benjamin Olmsted (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Borderline carnivore is likely a lay term. Subcarnivorous is the one I have heard used most, so I would go with that. Sorry I haven't been around/active much lately, finals have been keeping me busy. --NoahElhardt 15:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hear protocarnivorous and subcarnivorous about equally, though always in the context of the other (it seems the authors of most literature on these species acknowledge that one is a synonym for the other). I have rarely seen a piece speak of borderline carnivores and acknowledge one of the others as a synonym (or vice versa). Hope your finals went well. I still have a couple weeks until my quarter is complete. ... Anyone else have any opinions on any of the above? --Rkitko 08:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) was not "serious" as the previous version insists - it was a very funny comedy film. (Ibaranoff24 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

• I recently changed that part of the text around so it now mentions the 1960 film first, and then the musical, and then the 1986 film. (Ibaranoff24 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

For the purpose of this article, I'm not quite sure the following information is necessary:

...directed by Roger Corman. The film was remade as a musical play, which later became a film in 1986 (in the musical, the plant is named Audrey II).

I could see, potentially, how people might be looking for the more familiar name "Audrey II" from the 1986 film, but I would instead propose that the above quoted information be arranged like this:

Carnivorous plants have long been the subject of popular interest and exposition, much of it highly inaccurate. A fanciful carnivorous plant called Audrey Junior (not to be confused with the 1986 version's Audrey II) with an insatiable appetite was the central theme of the 1960 black comedy The Little Shop of Horrors

We don't necessarily need to know who the director of the film was here, or how many versions of the film there are--all we need to know is the subject matter (carnivorous plant) and how it relates to popular culture. Let me know your thoughts. There have been ongoing debates elsewhere on Wikipedia concerning the popular culture sections ballooning beyond the scope of the main article (see Talk:Hwacha for a revert war that was over this very topic). I'd like to avoid that here, so lend your opinion and let us discuss before we do anything on that! I'm also not very rigid on this point, it's just something I've seen out there on Wikipedia. Thanks! --Rkitko 01:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting idea, but the off-Broadway musical ALSO had Audrey II instead of Audrey Junior. It wasn't just the 1986 film that had the name change. (Ibaranoff24 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for going ahead and changing that. I'm glad we could incorporate the pertinent information. As for the Killer Tomatoes reference, having never seen the movie myself, I had to go off of what the IMDB and Amazon.com summaries say (which, surprise, they're the same--I wonder which one is the original?):

After a wave of reports of mysterious attacks involving people and pets being eaten by the traditionally docile fruit, a special government task force is set up to investigate the violent veggies and put a stop to their murderous spree.'

Does the movie simply state that there are news reports of people/pets being eaten where in the actual movie no pet or person is ever actually eaten? Even if it is the later, I still think there might be some way to craftily word the popular culture reference without adding too much detail and maintaining integrity to the truth of the film. Your insight would be greatly appreciated. Again, I'm not extremely worried if the reference isn't there--there's more than enough popular culture references. This is more intellectual curiosity. Thanks! Cheers, Rkitko 08:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is no actual reference to anything being eaten by the tomatoes in the film. (Ibaranoff24 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Someone with a copy of Book 1 of Harry Potter ought to extract details of the (fictional) plant that attacks Harry, Ron, and Hermione on their journey to retrieve the Sorcerer's Stone at the end of the book... for the younger generation that may well be the only "plant attacking people" incident they have seen or read. TaigaBridge 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Soil for carnivorous plants

Carnivorous plants are better off having bad soil. Generally, peat or sphagnum moss is the best.

Great article

This article is fantastic. Have you considered submitting it as a featured article candidate? --Doradus 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution?

This page treats evolution as a fact, though it is not proven. Perhaps not state it so forcefully (as there were no witnesses, we can not know exactly how something evolved, or if it even evolved.) 216.56.60.130 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the section on Evolution, and it seems quite balanced and fair to me. There are a few references earlier in the article that could be toned down a bit as you suggested, I'll see what I can do. --NoahElhardt 18:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We could perhaps add a section that deals with Carnivorus from an creationistic perspective. How God almighty created this plant so that it could drown and kill flies and other insects. Or perhaps we go with the science and treat the evolution as a fact and stop believe in fairy tales like the bible! 213.112.157.243 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is accepted as scientific fact, it's as much a theory as "the theory of gravity", this page is using reliable scientific references and really isn't the place for a creationist debate. Kotare 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Try science fiction or fantasy. Evolution is a fact that people can witness, like a caterpiller transforming into a butterfly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite enjoyed the section on evolutionary speculation. I was happy to find it there as it is indeed an interesting question, how such a plant might arise. 207.112.58.65 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution cannot be witnessed by anyone--the sheer time lapse between generation is simply too gradual. We must infer the process of evolution via comparison of modern species between each other and cross-referenced with the fossil record. Neo-Darwinian analysis may reveal the genetic similarity, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.77.17 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Carnivorous plants in the News

Carnivorous Plant Eats Mouse At French Garden - a mammal-eating Nepenthes Truncata (see slideshow) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This occurence has already been noted here and here. :) --NoahElhardt 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Biggest animal eaten by a plant?

I think the article could use a sentence or small paragraph on the biggest animal known to have been caught and consumed by a plant, since a lot of people would be interested in that type of information. At www.saracenia.com, they state that small birds, frogs, and rodents have been consumed, and probably most of them were too weak to escape when trapped and would have died soon afterward even if they had not been caught and digested.204.80.61.10 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Links

Hello guys,

I saw that there have been indecisiveness of what links should be on this page and I was just wondering what links you guys though should be aloud? Right now we have two that go the the CP FAQ (ones goes to the "What movies (etc.) have references to carnivorous plants?" section ) and not one links to the ICPS or the CPS that seems a little absurd. -Jeremiah- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeremiahsCPs (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Greetings. Thanks for coming here and asking for clarification. I hope I can clear things up for you. Check out the Wikipedia guidelines on acceptable links at WP:EL. The external links I usually remove from other pages are links to blogs, links to forums, etc. In this specific context, the reason why some links are removed and others aren't is that Wikipedia is not an internet directory with a list of all available external links. That is to say, the links to the ICPS and the CPS, while relevant, are not necessary here unless they serve as a direct reference (an article on the ICPS website, for example, that directly deals with the subject material--instead of a general link to their main page). An article on the International Carnivorous Plant Society, on the other hand, generally should have an external link directly to the ICPS website. Hope this helps. --Rkitko 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here I would disagree slightly. The ICPS website and even major carnivorous plant-related forums are both big enough sources of further information on the subject that they are worth listing. I often add the ICPS link to species pages, and having forum links on the main CP article makes sense to me. --NoahElhardt 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the ICPS website would indeed be helpful here. But I've watched external links sections with one "society" or "association" link that's associated with the subject material expand to dozens. Then which ones do you remove without entering a POV or preference for one over the others? Which ones are notable? When does the addition of these pages become less helpful and more like linkspam?

From WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided:

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

I'd say if and when the International Carnivorous Plant Society page is created, a link to their main website is appropriate (and I think we do need to create that page sometime soon!). Otherwise it doesn't really belong unless there's a link to a specific resource (FAQ, article, index of articles in the CPN Journal, etc.). Perhaps since the section title of that WP:EL guideline is "Links normally to be avoided" there is some way to see what an editor or admin more familiar with WP:EL policy thinks? --Rkitko 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fault

Very few fossils have been found, and all that do exist are either seed or pollen. Sorry, but this is not correct, see Aldrovanda inopinata or Archaeamphora longicervia. Denisoliver 07:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Text interruptions

Is there any reason why at the end of nearly every section there is a <br style="clear:both" /> tag? Apparently, it breaks up the flow of text so that a new section title doesn't begin in the middle of an image for the previous section. Is this personal preference or a WP:MOS suggestion? Just curious if that's something we need to get rid of in order to pass for FA status. --Rkitko 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Drosera image

I don't think, that the drosera on the image is rotundifolia. D. rotundifolia has different leaf morphology - the tentactules are not placed on the peduncle, the peduncle is usually narower and the end of the leafe is circular. This plat seems like D. capillaris, but I am not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petr Dlouhý (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

You are right. I fixed it. --NoahElhardt 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Links

I saw the revert for the dead link on protocarnivorous. I created a stub until such time as the actual article is written. Before I remove the dead links for each of these, which I looked for similar topics on and was unsuccessful, I thought I would pass them by the experts to see if you see another stub needed. I was able to fix a couple of the existing missing links.

"plumbagin", (hydroplumbagin is the only link, not the same thing)
"trigger hair", (not found)
"Acid growth", (only listed for animals)
"vesicula", (only listed for male redroductive organs)
"Pameridea", (not listed as a genus of assassin bug)
"primary growth", (secondary growth exists, but not primary growth)
"adaxial", (no link, upper or stem facing leaf)
"peltate", (general definition in leaf, but no links)
"net photosynthesis", (found Net Primary Productivity as closest match)
"carboxylase", (too general, no link for just carboxylase)
"Acephate", (Organophosphorus Incecticide, no link)
"Orthene", (Organophosphorus Incecticide, no link)
"Dr Carl Liche", (five references, no links)
"Mkodos", (three references, no links)
"Planta", (no links to reference exist)
"Oecologia", (no links to reference exist)
"Belgian Journal of Botany", (no links to reference exist)
"Plant Biology (Stuttgart)" (no links to reference exist)
CodeCarpenter 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the protocarnivorous plant article is in the works (see User:Rkitko/sandbox). Some of the above terms will have articles created in the future, so I'm comfortable leaving them as is. Some of the others are unlikely to, or just need to be linked correctly. "Peltate", for example, could just be linked to Leaf shape. --NoahElhardt 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecology and modelling of carnivory

I think that the "of carnivory" part of the section heading is unnecessary (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Sections_and_headings). We're talking about "Carnivorous plant" after all. Xiner (talk, email) 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the aforementioned section is borderline original research, it even states that "a model can be proposed". 207.126.230.225

Fair use rationale for Image:Smb1 piranha plant.png

Image:Smb1 piranha plant.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful pictures

Just in terms of making this article nicer to look at I think that the first picture, that of Nepenthes Mirabilis should be replaced with a more aesthetically pleasing image. It's kind of stark and unattractive with the barren rock in the background and you can't even see the pitchers very well anyway. The one below of Heliamphora nutans isn't too hot in my opinion either. I know this is isn't of crucial importance to the article and I'm not trying to be a dick but these are beautiful plants and frankly, you don't get that impression from these photos; neither does the plant concerned justice and it's kind of a poor way for the article to begin. As for alternatives I'd like to propose that the Heliamphora photo be replaced with a nice Drosera shot, such as that of Drosera intermedia on the main article and this for Nepenthes mirabilis http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Apes_abroad_-_Jug_Plant_%28by-sa%29.jpg - I really think this one should be replaced. Kotare 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Although I agree with replacing the photos, may I offer my thoughts? I think the Heliamphora photo isn't one of the best we have for Heliamphora. It should probably remain the same genus since that's the beginning of the pitfall trap section and displaying a primitive trap is important. Either of these illustrate the fact that it's just a simple rolled leaf: Image:H ionasii.jpg or Image:H chimantensis2.jpg. As for the Nepenthes being the very first photo, I agree we should change it. I do love that photo of the pitcher, but think that it should probably be a photo of a whole plant. And maybe something more recognizable as a carnivorous plant to the general readership? I like Image:Dionaea muscipula 1.jpg. Or perhaps we should go the opposite direction and place something there that not every reader will immediately identify as a carnivorous plant. In that case, I like the Nepenthes picture that's there because it shows the whole plant. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, well I like the second Heliamphora photo better than the first as you can see pitchers in a greater range of sizes and also because the light in this shot is more.. conventional. The first shot almost seems a bit too arty for wikipedia if you know what I mean. Yeah I thought that showing the whole plant might have been one of the reasons the present Nepenthes shot was there.. I didn't really see any stand-out alternatives on wikicommons. I really like that Dionaea photo as well and I think it should be put first primarily because, as you said, it will be more reconizable to the general readership and wil thus make for a more gentle introduction to the article. Also however, it is a nice photo and aesthetically it will make for a more pleasant lead in to the article for the average reader and of course you can see pretty much the whole plant which is important. I think these changes will really make this article easier on the eyes! Cheers, Kotare 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry

Are there any cases of carnivorous plants displaying aggressive mimicry? I'm working on that part of the article and I always try to look for plant or other non-animal examples, but they have received very little attention. I haven't been able to find any myself, and I can't see the word mentioned anywhere in the article, though I can't imagine why this wouldn't have evolved. A plant that released sex pheromones mimicking those of its prey would surely catch more insects, no? Richard001 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only place I found it mentioned might be in Pasteur, Georges. (1982). A classification review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13: 169-199.

In the plant kingdom, flowers simulated by trap-leaves of various terrestrial carnivorous plants are comparable examples. Similarly, the filamentous extensions that arise from the trap vesicles of Utricularia resemble filamentous algae, a usual substrate for the crustaceans they feed upon.

Though Pasteur calls this "aggressive semi-abstract homotypy" if that means anything to you. He cites two publications in that paragraph: Meyers, D.G., Strickler, J.R. (1979). Capture enhancement in a carnivorous aquatic plant: function of antennae and bristles in Utricularia vulgaris. Science, 203: 1022-1025.

And: Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in Plants and Animals. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Other sources have suggested that the traps of Drosera evolved to mimic dew drops to fool young flies and the trap edges of Nepenthes species may mimic flowers to lure pollinating insects to their doom, but there's little more than speculation. A sex pheromone, like you said, would be conclusive evidence of a mimicry link (or one damn impressive example of convergent evolution), though most carnivorous species prey on a variety of insects and lack that kind of specialization.

Another publication notes: Certain carnivorous pitcher plants, which attract insects through false floral cues (e.g. bright markings on the upper part of the pitcher, lids resembling a corolla, and production of scents), may be considered examples of this class (aggressive mimicry).

From Ngugi, H.K. and Scherm, H. (2006). Mimicry in plant-parasitic fungi. FEMS Microbiol Lett, 257: 171–176.

Hope that little bit helps. The last publication I mentioned might also be useful to describe fungi-plant mimicry if it's lacking. I appreciate you searching for non-animal examples! Though, of course, animal ecology is where the wealth of information on this topic lies. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've also found some more on this in Wolfgang Wickler's work. Both flowers and droplets are mimicked, apparently. I'll try to add something about this to the mimicry article - I'll probably split the aggressive mimicry section off from the main article at some point too so I so this can be covered in greater detail. I'll be sure to add anything here as well. Richard001 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My question was deleted

Are all carnivorous plants Photoheterotrophs? It's a simple question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.185.73 (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question was removed because the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements or problems with the article, not to ask questions about the subject of the article. Try WikiAnswers or something similar for that. In any case, no carnivorous plant is a photoheterotroph. They're all photoautotrophs like most other plants. --Rkitko ^(talk) 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But they receive carbon compounds from insects. Doesn't this make them partially heterotrophic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.185.73 (talk)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM (#4). By all means, create an account and discuss how we can improve this article! As for the answer to your question, try reading the primary literature. Here is a good one. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

{{feeding}}

Re: The recent addition of {{feeding}}; is it appropriate for this article? The title of the template is "feeding behaviour of animals". My initial reaction is to remove it. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting new image

I'd like to propose inserting an image I took.

the image

] I realize there are already lots of media for this image, however there are none of the photos present in the article look like this plant with its sack-like shape, while they almost all appear to be made of tiny extensions (Yes, I am very, very ignorant regarding this topic, but I learnt a few things while reading the article! :) ). One problem: I've no clue what plant is this actually. I regret that I actually did not write its name down. Nonetheless, I'm sure an expert should be able to identify it easily. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udonknome (talk • contribs)

The image is technically good quality, but the pitcher "lid" is cut out of the image frame. It's a species of Nepenthes and we have two other images with Nepenthes in the body of the article, none with a close-up of the pitcher, though. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably Nepenthes alata or some hybrid with it. User:Mgiganteus1 would probably be better at identifying it than I am. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)