Dear Manudev ji Giby ji and Gurcharan ji Thanks for opening up with your thoughts. Everybody knows about the limitations of identifying a plant. So many members of the group eager to see the plants posted itself shows the interest of the members. If you people were not willing to share your knowledge many members like me would have kept on believing our old knowledge acquired from very few people with whom we have seen the plants in the field. These healthy discussions is a mandatory part of the group. Regards On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Giby Kuriakose <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear Manudev, > > There was nothing to hurt anybody in your mail, I think. > At least, I didn't find anything. Healthy discussions on different aspects > and thoughts are always welcome here, I think. > I still feel that you brought up a very valid point as far as research and > working with local or regional flora is concerned. If this happens when > people make local or regional flora then there would be near zero error in > such publications. > > Here, in this forum we all have limitations. Mistakes and corrections are > part and parcel as we are guessing from images, especially people > are reluctant to give or explain the characters of the plant/s. And I > personally don't claim that my guess or suggestions are 100% perfect. > I would be happy when the uploader get back to say that "Yes, I cross > checked and found your suggestion matches with the description". > > > Thanks and Regards > Giby > > > > > On 31 October 2011 14:35, manudev madhavan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> My intention was to point out the fact that there are few errors do occur >> in floras and monographs and not to blame anyone..!! >> I know the limitations of our members (including me) identifying the >> plants from few photographs.. >> In fact myself also start with some regional floras or district floras >> when I get plant. I use to check the descriptions of the floras and the >> original description if it is available with me. i know we may not be able >> to check the protologue all the time. But If we had checked the character >> set of the plants from the images available to us,with the protologues, we >> can reduce the percentage of errors in eflora india. >> I apologize if my comments had hurt anyone.. >> >> with warm regards >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I also generally start with regional flora and then verify it with other >>> resources. That helps in fixing it properly. >>> Perhaps many people think it obsolete, but Flora of British India has >>> great value. It is this Flora which has initiated the description of >>> numerous new species from India or redefining its status. >>> I don't know if all members know the two paragraph significance of >>> FBI. The upper paragraph starts with accepted name and its full reference >>> and diagnosis taken from original description, followed by synonyms. >>> The second paragraph is wholly Indian. It starts with distribution >>> and then description based entirely on Indian specimens and special >>> comments which helps to assess the level of affinities with first >>> paragraph. It is these comments which helped segregating Indian Sambucus as >>> S. wightiana distinct from S. ebulus and Hedera nepalensis as distinct from >>> H. helix, and many more independent taxa. Even while merging Indian taxa >>> with European ones, FBI gave minor or significant differences in second >>> paragraph, helping greatly the subsequent Indian workers. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Gurcharan Singh >>> Retired Associate Professor >>> SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 >>> Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. >>> Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089 >>> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Giby Kuriakose < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Manudev, >>>> >>>> I agree with you that the identification would perfect when we do it >>>> based on protologue and monographs. >>>> >>>> By the way, It was my mistake that I ided the plant in this thread >>>> wrongly and it was not the mistake in any flora. I realized the same when >>>> Prabhu pointed out. >>>> >>>> I apologized for the same. >>>> >>>> I do not think we have monographs for even 10% of genera in India. >>>> >>>> And I do not think that we can always go and check the protologues and >>>> monographs especially when we get photographs to id. >>>> If at all it is necessary, the person who upload has to check and get >>>> back because he handled the specimen. It is been happening here. >>>> Many of the members are cross checking the id based on >>>> expert suggestions. It is a collective effort that we are handling. >>>> >>>> Further, district flora will give us a clearer picture (provided that >>>> the id and the information are correct) about the plants in that region. >>>> That mostly reduces the burden of going through long keys (at least for >>>> new comers) wherein the key would be for a broader region (eg. Gamble, >>>> Presidency of Madrass, covers almost the whole peninsular India and some of >>>> the keys are too complicated to handle, especially for a layman or a >>>> newcomer). >>>> >>>> I suggest experts to write the concerned author and the publisher, of >>>> whatever publication, pointing out the mistakes. I hope you have done the >>>> same for what you found with Arisaema. >>>> I use to do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Giby >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 October 2011 12:18, manudev madhavan >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> A humble suggestion from my side.. >>>>> Whenever we make a comment on the identity of a plant, I request to >>>>> you to check the characters of the plants with the protologue. I have >>>>> seen many floras give wrong identifications and misleading >>>>> descriptions. Can you imagine a a wrong identification even in a >>>>> monograph?? Myself has encountered such a situation recently in an >>>>> Arisaema revision. Such mistakes can carry forward easily. Almost all >>>>> the Kerala floras have followed this wrong ID in their treatment of >>>>> the genus. I agree many times we may not able to check the protologues >>>>> but we can select most reliable works. >>>>> I would suggest you people to refer monographs or family revisions >>>>> rather than district floras for the confirmation of the ID. Since the >>>>> mistakes are even found in such monographs and revisions, it would be >>>>> much better if it is the original description or type illustration >>>>> of the plant. I think accessing a protologue is not a himalayan in >>>>> this era >>>>> >>>>> with warm regards >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 9:32 am, Giby Kuriakose <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > I have written to few people whose id is misleading referring this >>>>> thread >>>>> > and few other relevant online references. >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks and Regards, >>>>> > Giby. >>>>> > >>>>> > On 24 October 2011 18:56, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > Yes Prejith ji ... I am one of the contributors in misleading !! >>>>> > > Some of pictures in my photostream need to be rectified. >>>>> > > Will revisit them shortly. >>>>> > >>>>> > > Giby ji was kind enough to at least two instances. >>>>> > >>>>> > > Regards. >>>>> > > Dinesh >>>>> > >>>>> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM, PreSam <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Thanks to everybody for the identification. A lot of pictures of >>>>> > >> Murdannia pauciflora on the internet are misleading. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Regards, >>>>> > >> Prejith. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> On Oct 24, 11:07 am, Giby Kuriakose <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >> > I am very sorry for a mistake from my side as I have taken >>>>> notes wrongly >>>>> > >> on >>>>> > >> > to my notebook and my identification of plant in this thread >>>>> went wrong. >>>>> > >> I >>>>> > >> > do not know how it had happened. >>>>> > >> > Thank you Prabhu for pointing out that and made me to recheck >>>>> the same. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Yes this is *M. pauciflora* only. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > I further agree with Mayur jis explanation on *M. languinosa. * >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > *Murdania pauciflora* >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > ....stem creeping rooting at nodes, villous on one side. Leaves >>>>> up to 5X >>>>> > >> > 1.6cm sessile base usually cordate; more or less hairy, sheaths >>>>> with >>>>> > >> ciliate >>>>> > >> > margins >>>>> > >> > Flowers in 1-5 flowered, axillary cymes. Sepals narrowely >>>>> oblong petals >>>>> > >> > brownish yellow >>>>> > >> > Stamens and staminodes 3 each..... (Flora of Udupi, G K Bhat) >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Thanks and Regards >>>>> > >> > Giby >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > On 24 October 2011 08:53, Mayur Nandikar < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> > >> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > Dear all................. >>>>> > >> > > Prabhu ji is may be right and again I am writing here flowers >>>>> in >>>>> > >> *Murdannia >>>>> > >> > > pauciflora *are orange to brick red in colour. >>>>> > >> > > * >>>>> > >> > > * >>>>> > >> > > In *Murdannia lanuginosa *leaves are linear to linear >>>>> lanceolate with >>>>> > >> a >>>>> > >> > > broad base, finely acuminate apex, conspicuously striate and >>>>> with >>>>> > >> acuminate >>>>> > >> > > margin. Grow always erect. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > Above posted plant is may be *M. pauciflora *coz of its >>>>> prostrate >>>>> > >> habit >>>>> > >> > > (apparently look likes), leaves ovate, apex acute, and >>>>> margins aren't >>>>> > >> that >>>>> > >> > > much of undulate. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > To compare herewith I am attaching image of *M. lanuginosa * >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > * * >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Satish Phadke < >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> > >> >wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> *Murdannia lanuginosa* >>>>> > >> > >> A common plant at Kaas in Sep. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Prejith Sampath < >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> > >> >wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >>> This is a plant found growing on the roadsides in South >>>>> Wynad at >>>>> > >> about >>>>> > >> > >>> 700 to 800 msl. Is it a Commelina sp. ? >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >>> Regards, >>>>> > >> > >>> Prejith >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> -- >>>>> > >> > >> Dr Satish Phadke >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > -- >>>>> > >> > > Mr. Mayur D. Nandikar, >>>>> > >> > > Research Student, >>>>> > >> > > Department of Botany, >>>>> > >> > > Shivaji University, >>>>> > >> > > Kolhapur. >>>>> > >> > > 07507013607 >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > -- >>>>> > >> > GIBY KURIAKOSE PhD >>>>> > >> > Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment >>>>> (ATREE), >>>>> > >> > Royal Enclave, >>>>> > >> > Jakkur Post, Srirampura >>>>> > >> > Bangalore- 560064 >>>>> > >> > India >>>>> > >> > Phone - +91 9448714856 (Mobile) >>>>> > >> > visit my pictures @http://www.flickr.com/photos/giby >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > GIBY KURIAKOSE PhD >>>>> > Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), >>>>> > Royal Enclave, >>>>> > Jakkur Post, Srirampura >>>>> > Bangalore- 560064 >>>>> > India >>>>> > Phone - +91 9448714856 (Mobile) >>>>> > visit my pictures @http://www.flickr.com/photos/giby >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> GIBY KURIAKOSE PhD >>>> Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), >>>> Royal Enclave, >>>> Jakkur Post, Srirampura >>>> Bangalore- 560064 >>>> India >>>> Phone - +91 9448714856 (Mobile) >>>> visit my pictures @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/giby >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Manudev K Madhavan* >> Junior Research Fellow >> Systematic & Floristic Lab, >> Department of Botany, >> Centre for Postgraduate Studies & Research >> St. Joseph's College, Devagiri >> Kozhikode- 673 008 >> Mob: 9496470738 >> >> > > > -- > GIBY KURIAKOSE PhD > Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), > Royal Enclave, > Jakkur Post, Srirampura > Bangalore- 560064 > India > Phone - +91 9448714856 (Mobile) > visit my pictures @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/giby > -- Dr Satish Phadke
