I want to make clear that I am not in favour of or against digital photography. One point in favour of digital photography: Taxonomist and botanists use small hand held lenses to observe tiny parts of the plants. The macro lenses replace these and to one's surprise when he goes back to his computer after the field visit the observations are found to be far better than actual field observations. Even the freshness of the parts is preserved in the picture as against the herbarium samples.
After some time the era of digital herbarium is going to come. The limitations about it will be sorted out by some experts e.g.pictures can be taken with ruler kept by the side of specimen etc. (Myself being a medical doctor can site one comparable example: Earlier use of sonography(Ultrsound test) in pregnancy for monitoring fetal development used to be taken with a pinch of salt because of its limitations but now a days no pregnancy continues without at least one sonography test... Technology used judiciously has its own advantages. The interpreter behind it of course matters a lot.) I urge in this forum to all experts to device methods to sort out problems and limitations of digital photography similar to what Gurcharan ji and Aparna ji have always suggested. In this way the internet and other technologial gadgetary will be properly used for the benefit of the science. Dr Satish Phadke 2009/11/3 Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> > > I know such discussions will crop up when persons from so many fields > interact. The main aim of this group, I think is to encourage more and more > people to look at plants, know about their uses, local names, and > ultimately > it would be a big step towards environmental management. > I have been practicing taxonomy for last 40 years, but the madness > about plants started only after I joined this group. We the taxonomists are > often happy to pick up the local flora and identify the plants, not > realising that a few related species must have cropped in into the area > after that local flora was published. Only after joining this group I came > to know about plants which I thought something else from Maheshwari's Flora > of Delhi. This I know must have also been the experience of other > colleagues. Sometimes I am amazed by the critical eye of Tabish ji, Garg ji > and others not professional taxonomists. > I know and many others must be feeling how useful the FlowersofIndia > website is for identification. We are all learning and let us encourage > others. > All of us know Poaceae and Cyperaceae are difficult to identify, but once > one of us has spent time on identification, there are always some physical > markers to remember identification of that grass or sedge. When we identify > hundreds of plants (including grasses and sedges) in our ecology/taxonomy > classes, or herbarium identification, we seldom look for books. If these > photographs go to our websites, it would help in awareness about grasses > and > sedges. > > My personal request! Let us not discourage members from taking photos > of grasses and sedges, rather encourage them and urge them to include shots > of auricles and ligules, closeup of spikelets. The digital photography > today allows clearer view than our naked eyes. > > Today herbaria are discouraging taxonomists from handling of actual > specimens, and rather use their virtual herbaria. We should be happy that > we > are using photgraphs of live plants with everything preserved. > Good photography for all > > > > > Dr. Gurcharan Singh > Associate Professor > SGTB Khalsa College > University of Delhi, Delhi > India > http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45 <http://people.du.ac.in/%7Esinghg45> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aparna Watve" <[email protected]> > To: "Vijayasankar Raman" <[email protected]> > Cc: "J.M. Garg" <[email protected]>; "Nayan Singh" > <[email protected]>; "indiantreepix" > <[email protected]>; "grassman" <[email protected]>; > "Avinash dada" <[email protected]>; "Rani Bhagat" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:18 PM > Subject: [indiantreepix:22157] Re: Grass for id 031109jm2 > > > > > > Dear all, > > As a short answer to the earlier mails, - I stand by what I said in > > spite of the issues Garg ji has raised. Some reasons have already > > been pointed out by Vijay ji. > > > > Before I proceed to give a long answer, I would like to ask all here > > some questions, > > a. What is the accuracy of identification that we are aiming for? > > My answer -for every plant I want a "scientifically accurate" > > identification. > > > > b. What is the reason for scientific accuracy? > > Because I see that handbooks and electronic databases, are now very > > commonly being used for ecological surveys, environment impact > > assessments, teaching, making books, making environment education > > material, species distribution mapping, natural resource management > > planning, ( For each of this- I can give an example from real life > > where it was done). All this work requires scientific accuracy of > > identification. Even many of the laymen (-a word I dont like to use) > > are experts in their own field where they use this knowledge, for > > example ayurvedic doctors who want to know plants to be used in > > medicine. > > > > c. Can we guarantee scientific accuracy of identification from a photo? > > But before that, what kind of photo? - a simple reporting picture (as > > are most on this mailing list) lacks most characters of id. I always > > try to point out what more is required and some like Dr. Satish Phadke > > are taking more and more pics with necessary key characters. > > > > For the tricky families, if a person can take a picture showing all > > necessary characters for the identification it will be possible to id > > even grasses,sedges, eriocaulons clearly. But with the characters in > > question, it will mean not only macro photos, but scanning electron > > micrographs for characters of nut. How many can do this? > > > > It is true that an expert, with his vast field knowledge can take one > > look at a specimen and tell you what it is. Rani and Anilkumar (I know > > both of them personally) on this group who know grasses well can do > > it, . They have certain field characters in their mind by which they > > do it, and they will turn out to be correct in most cases. But if > > others try to use that photo for more identifications from similar > > looking plants, they might get it wrong. > > > > Dr. S. R. Yadav, of Kolhapur university and his PHD students working > > on Poaceae of Maharashtra have developed an EXCELLENT set of > > photographs of grass genera, from which identification is easy and > > ACCURATE. I do hope they publish it soon. If one can get pictures like > > that, then I will not mind id from digital photos. > > > > for the rest of garg ji's points- > > > >> We can't wait for the perfect things (which never will in any case) to > >> happen. > > - It is not perfection but ACCURACY being discussed. Even a bad photo > > of a tiger is enough for id. But with the greatest photo of flowering > > sedge it still is difficult to accurately distinguish Pycreas and > > Cyperus. > > > >> Our Floras only bulky technical details, hardly readable to a laymen. > > Well I agree only partially to this, some floras of present are not > > even good enough for a trained experienced taxonomist to use. But > > please remember that floras were and will be written for those trained > > in the subject. If a person trains him/herself to understand the > > subject (like many notable examples on this group) they will follow it > > too. > > BTW, any technical subject book is going to be difficult to follow for > > a person not from the background. I can hardly hope to easily > > understand medical textbooks, or computer software books, though I > > would love to diagnose my own sickness and write my own software > > programmes. > > > >>Or we simply stop photographing or knowing about Poaceae, Cyperaceae etc. > > Well this is subjective. Those who want, can continue to do it as it > > is, (and I attach the taxonomist's warning) or do it after reading up > > technical literature on identification of these species and try and > > get as many characters in the photo as possible (in that case my > > warnings become little diluted, depending on the nature of the > > photograph....) > > > > Also as I have worded the warning, - it says "confirm" the > > identification. A "confirmed identification" is where there is no > > doubt remaining about the identity of the species in that photograph. > > A simple identification is where there remains a chance that the > > identification is wrong, and hence use of that identification is at > > the person's own risk. The photo and subsequent comments on it can > > give pointers, indications, as I usually try to give (for less complex > > families), if I am not sure about identification based on the photo > > alone. > > > > Perhaps you should also put this subject on the mailing list of Indian > > Association of Angiosperm Taxonomists. It will be most interesting to > > hear their views. > > > > Regards > > Aparna > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "indiantreepix" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.in/group/indiantreepix?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
