Thanks vijayji..
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Vijayasankar <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting discussion, Manudev ji and Giby. > > Satish ji, let me try to answer your query. > > In simple terms, Protologue is the original description of a plant > published for the first time. It may be a book or a paper in a journal. The > (herbarium) specimen of the newly described plant is the 'Type specimen', > with which the botanical name is permanently attached. > > It is customary to refer and quote the protologue and Type, when we write > a taxonomic article, espl. to be sure that we work on the correct plant and > correct name. This is what being stressed by Manudev ji here. > > I know, many botanists in the group spend time to refer digital > protologues and scanned herbarium images from various sources, to identify > some of the not-so-common plants that are posted here. This may not be > necessary for all plants, but it is essential to sort out doubtful id. > Thanks to the IT, we are now able to at least see these treasures > digitally, because, Type specimens of many of the Indian plants are not > available in India, and we can not travel to herbaria for every plant. > > Pankaj has posted protologues and Types of several orchids in this forum. > > Regards > > Vijayasankar Raman > National Center for Natural Products Research > University of Mississippi > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Satish Phadke <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Manudev ji >> Can you describe in short what is meant by Protologue in botanical >> terms?(and may be other related terms) >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:24 PM, manudev madhavan < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Satish Phadke >> > > -- *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
