Description
The stem of N. mapuluensis can measure up to 6 mm in diameter, but the maximum length is unknown. Internodes are cylindrical and up to 4 cm long. The leaves are coriaceous. The lamina is oblanceolate-linear in morphology, up to 26 cm long, and 5 cm wide. The apex of the lamina is acute, while the base is attenuate, sub-petiolate, and semi-amplexicaul. Tendrils grow to 50 cm in length.
The pitchers of N. mapuluensis are ellipsoidal in shape. They grow to 21 cm in height and 8.5 cm in diameter. The pitchers possess two fringed wings up to 10 mm wide. The peristome of this species is moderately developed and is folded or wavy as in the closely related N. northiana. The peristome may be up to 12 mm wide and bears a row of distinct, but not pronounced, teeth. Aerial or upper pitchers may be infundibular throughout, but are often cylindrical and relatively small. They bear reduced fringed wings or ribs.
Nepenthes mapuluensis has a racemose inflorescence. The peduncle is up to 7 cm long. The size of the rachis is unknown. Pedicels grow to 8 mm in length. A study of 120 pollen samples taken from the type specimen (Kostermans 14017) found the mean pollen diameter to be 28.9 μm (SE = 0.5; CV = 9.2%).
The species is mostly glabrous, although certain parts of the plant, such as the pitchers, may have a scattered indumentum of short hairs.
Read more about this topic: Nepenthes Mapuluensis
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“Whose are the truly labored sentences? From the weak and flimsy periods of the politician and literary man, we are glad to turn even to the description of work, the simple record of the month’s labor in the farmer’s almanac, to restore our tone and spirits.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Once a child has demonstrated his capacity for independent functioning in any area, his lapses into dependent behavior, even though temporary, make the mother feel that she is being taken advantage of....What only yesterday was a description of the child’s stage in life has become an indictment, a judgment.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)