Thank you all... My guide use to tell the necessity of the protologues to reach conclusions in the circumscription of a species.And i always try to do the same when I get a plant, atleast for genus *Arisaema*. We knew that during the preparation of a flora, one have to process thousands of plants, and has to make lot of data sheets of each plant he/she come across. I am not sure how sincerely one can finish all these things in a stipulated time. Unfortunately I myself have seen few workers who just "cut & copy" some preceding floras available, even "Flora of British India & Flora of Presidency of Madras". It does not mean that "all" the floras are made like that.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Yazdy Palia <[email protected]> wrote: > No way brother, you have not written anything to hurt anyone. Such > suggestions must keep coming. Incidentally, I learned something today, > having gone through your mail, I have learned what a protologue is. > For the integrity of the information on the site, I am with you. We > non botanists are enjoying the experience of sharing photographs, > learning from the knowledge of the experts. With regards to your > suggestions, I at least think the knowledgeable should decide. > Regards > Yazdy. > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:35 PM, 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 > > > -- *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
