http://jharkhand.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/29-new-species-of-bryophytes-found-in-the-khandadhar-hills/
I am dismayed that how ambiguous statements are being floated amongst the fraternity of scientific society particularly in bryophytes plants. In India, few of the centers, viz. Bhuvaneshwar and Bariely College, where the aspirants pursuing their career on environmental monitoring taking finger count taxa of bryophytes are claiming 29 new species of bryophytes from Orrisa.?? The bryologists concerned to these two centers claiming 29 new species of bryophytes, barely know the bryophytes Fortunately, I have gone through few of their contributions and also opportunity to review few of their research papers in bryophytes taxonomy. Nowhere, their adroitness appeared in bryophytes systematics, and somewhere their taxonomic doctoring seems doubtful. As far my knowledge and experience in bryophytes are concerned, to assign hardly single new taxa in bryophytes, number of experts' opinions and literature survey is needed. Therefore, I am aghast that why these people is giving such ambiguous statements.?? I too have gone through the pictures of these plants pasted on sites. None of these are new species. All of them are already well established and known from the very eighteenth century. To say: these species are Anthoceros laevis L., Plagiochasma appendiculatum L., Lunularia cruciata (L.) Dum., and Pallavicinia lyellii (Hook.) Caurt. When, these taxa are already established, then how redundantly these people are claiming 29 new taxa??? It is certainly, an absurd approach giving wrong statements, flaws-full contributions to blend the innocent, equitable, dedicated and faithful bryologist across the world. I remember the phrases during my childhood "Don't finger to snake mouth when be innocent to scorpion chanting". To say, therefore, unless no sound knowledge in the subject, dont derive any conclusion globally. Its better to look forward others opinion, whoever is versed in the area. This tendency and approaches confuses others too. I had been associated with taxonomy of bryophytes, little bit with gymnosperms and recently pteridophytes too. Finally, I derived a conclusion that in whole plant groups the Bryophytes and Bryologists vis-versa are handled in smooth and very clear way. There is no any confusion, unlike other plant group, and it is only due to legitimate, constructive and very fair approaches of bryologists. Now it becomes the responsibility of successor bryologists to remain the fact very clear in bryology. I again humbly request all those who usually show this tendency, please avoid such notoriousness to make bryology smooth and understandable. With abash request Ajit Pratap Singh
