Samir ji, There are few websites, or online libraries for archives of old journals and books (for Protologue's) might be you aware with this. Even you can search plant name from Tropicos http://www.tropicos.org/ they will provide all the details of taxa furthermore you can access the original protologue from this site.
Following are few libraries... Biblioteca Digital <http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/index.php> Biodiversity Heritage Library<http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/About.aspx> Botanicus <http://www.botanicus.org/browse> **BPH <http://fmhibd.library.cmu.edu/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=BPH_Online&-loadframes> **e-journals <http://www.e-journals.org/botany/> Gallica <http://gallica.bnf.fr/> Guide to the plant species descriptions published in seed lists from Botanic Gardens for the period 1800 - 1900<http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl/seedlists/home.htm> Kurt Stüber's Online Library <http://www.zum.de/stueber/> Linnaean Dissertations <http://128.2.21.109/fmi/xsl/LinnDiss/home.xsl> Martius's Flora Brasiliensis <http://florabrasiliensis.cria.org.br/index> Philological Museum<http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/bibliography/index.htm> Thank you.......:) On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Samir Mehta <[email protected]> wrote: > Apologies for entering the thread late but can someone tell us > amateurs the popular websites where these Protologue's can be > accessed, especially for our plants? > > Thanks & Regards, > > Samir Mehta > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:57 pm, manudev madhavan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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, > > > > ... > > > > read more » -- Mr. Mayur D. Nandikar, Research Student, Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 07507013607
