Thanks to Samir for sharing his sighting of Uraria rufescens in his recent post <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/indiantreepix/tZ_OfFKWuOg/nvXla4eIDAAJ>, I am convinced that the posted plant is *Uraria rufescens*. Regards. Dinesh
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Samir, I am far from "accepting / not accepting". I can do so if I > have any knowledge of this plant. I am not familiar with this plant so can > only wait for it to be identified by any of those who know / recognize it. > Photographs howsoever clear, beautiful .. are of little use if they lack > some of the aspects needed for identification. Under such circumstances, > those attempting to identify are driven to think OR guess in interest of > resolving the ID. With their thoughts and guesses, people like me are > benefited. Otherwise most of our queries would go into cold storage. It is > quite charming to see how wild guesses and logical thinking leads to > concluding ID. Even if any post gets sealed with a wrong ID, it is bound to > arise sometime or other to get corrected. That is the goodness of the group. > > The group is fortunate to have you and many others who like to dig. It > helps immensely to set right any mistakes that have crept into archive. > Best wishes for doing your bit to help the group. > > There would come some day when our group's database will have descriptive > keys accompanied by pictorial keys. That will make most of us who are > merely photographing, understand and focus on the aspects required to > differentiate species within a genus. As Satish (Pardeshi) ji says ... so > much to still learn and explore. > > Regards. > Dinesh > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Samir Mehta <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dinesh, what I like about this post (other than those beautiful flowers >> so well captured by you) is the fact that you do not accept the identity as >> U. rufescens. >> You have raised the bar for the group in accepting id. Gone are the days >> when one said 'I think so' and another saying 'I also think so' and so it >> became 'so' and identity was confirmed and sealed - date and location not >> required either! >> It also means the group still does not have a U. rufescens in it's >> impressive gallery (though there are a few posts with that subject line) >> showing 'key' features clearly. >> >> Let me see what I can do to rectify this deficiency for the group. >> >> Rgds, >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:33:15 PM UTC+5:30, Pardeshi S. wrote: >>> >>> Wow... Didn't thought of it being Uvaria...... So much to still learn >>> and explore >>> >>> Regards >>> Satish pardeshi >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "efloraofindia" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "efloraofindia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
