Dr. Pankaj interesting. I am not the only follower of Dr. Almeida so many in Mah. and elsewhere will be happy. I have never ever referred links, everyone on efloraofindia knows the pitfalls, nothing new that you have brought out. I only refer to Kew and one or two other well referred sources.
By the way do you remember how you misguided everyone for the Tamarind tree scientific name by refering to a yahoo source some time back, when I had posted the same? Shocking isn't it? I had actually believed you till another expert brought the wrong info. to notice. That is the reason I asked you to cite your source for the Alstonia scholaris epithet. As simple as that. Can you cite your sourcee now? But well when you want to make an issue out of simple questions nobody can help it. And on top of that you make insinuations and call people ignorant, you insult respected elders , you ban young individuals like Tanay from responding to you? How does one function with you? . regards, Rashida. On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Pankaj Kumar <sahanipan...@gmail.com>wrote: > Many websites, have this bad habit of copying and pasting informations > from other sites or links and if there is a wrong information on one > site then it gets transfered to another and so on, at the end, what we > get is wrong information on most of the sites. Its not easy for anyone > to choose which is wrong and which is right. Hence most of the links > and websites cant be reliable. > > To give you an example, I am just searching for one orchid on google, > Cymbidium aloifolium. This plant name is randomly selected. > I will select the 20 links from top on google and check if they are > correct!! > > 1 http://orchids.wikia.com/wiki/Cymbidium_aloifolium - CORRECT > 2 http://www.orchidspecies.com/cymaloeifolium.htm - INCORRECT > 3 http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/60070/ - INCORRECT > 4 http://www.orchids.co.in/orchid-plant/cymbidium-aloifolium.shtm - IF > THATS THE IMAGE, THEN ITS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT > 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymbidium_aloifolium - INCORRECT > 6 > http://www.orchidboard.com/community/cymbidium-alliance/37102-cymbidium-aloifolium.html > - NO IMAGE OR DESCRIPTION > 7 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cymbidium_aloifolium - > MULTIPLE PICTURES ALL OF WHICH SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT > 8 > http://www.kidsfortigers.org/index.php?view=detail&id=16&option=com_joomgallery&Itemid=89 > - INCORRECT > 9 http://www.sborchid.com/plantdisplay.php?ocode=CYM000010 - THEY HAVE > GIVEN INCORRECT NAME FOR A CORRECT PLANT > 10 > http://www.globinmed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62792:cymbidium-aloifolium-l-sw&catid=367:c > - INCORRECT > 11 > http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Aloe%20Leaf%20Cymbidium.html > - CORRECT, IDENTIFIED BY ME > 12 http://www.flickr.com/photos/b_inxee/4550849819/ - INCORRECT, MAY > BE AN ALBINO OF CORRECT PLANT > 13 http://orchidscare.blogspot.com/2010/12/cymbidium-aloifolium.html - > INCORRECT > 14 http://www.orchidsonline.com.au/node/3785 - INCORRECT > 15 > http://www.orchisasia.org/genre/Cymbidium/Cymbidium%20aloifolium/index.html > - DOUBTFUL, SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT > 16. http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=117670&flora_id=2 > - INCORRECT > 17 > http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/orchids-other-genera-bloom/19980-cymbidium-aloifolium.html > - INCORRECT > 18 > http://b-and-t-world-seeds.com/carth.asp?species=Cymbidium%20aloifolium&sref=6488 > - INCORRECT > 19 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/orchidspecies/message/2939 - NO > IMAGES OR DESCRIPTION > 20 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4110039 - INCORRECT (THIS WAS MOST > UNEXPECTED FOR ME!!) > > CORRECT - 2; INCORRECT - 16; NOT HELPFUL - 2 > So 80% of the links have incorrect identification including JSTOR and > EFLORA. > > Claiming that 100 of sites on internet and may even some reference > books, designate this plant as Cymbidium aloifolium doesnt make this > plant Cymbidium aloifolium. For me in one word such an explanation is > RIDICULOUS. The main issue is, some one misidentified the plant and > then described the incorrect plant as Cymbidium aloifolium. Ironically > it has been followed in eflora and other links, just because its > started with copying and pasting the informations from here and there. > > Now the big time question, where to check ? > > Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Sw. in Nov. Act. Soc. Sci. Ups. 6: 73 (1799); > > Type: Illustration in Rheede, Hort. Malab. t. 8 (1703) (Lectotype). Plate > 26A.. > > Anyone at Xavier's college may check for this reference to check the > plate and they will know the mistakes in the identity. I am also > forwarding this mail to Shinde sir and his students for help. It would > be great if any one of you can share an image of the plate available > in Hortus Malabaricus. > > Very interestingly, a good news for Ms. Rashida Atthar will be that, > Dr. Almeida's plate in his Flora of Maharastra seems to be correct. > One of the main reasons could be as simple as the fact that he had an > access to this book, Hortus Malabaricus at BLAT. Unfortunatley, I cant > say this for all his orchids though!! > > Moral of the story: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A REFERENCE OF AN AUTHENTIC > OR NON-AUTHENTIC SITE or BOOK, DOESNT MAKE DETERMINATIVE OF ANY TAXA > CORRECT. PLEASE RELY ON ORIGINAL SOURCES FOR IDENTIFICATION. > > Regards > Pankaj > > > > > -- > *********************************************** > "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" > > > Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) > Research Associate > Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project > Department of Habitat Ecology > Wildlife Institute of India > Post Box # 18 > Dehradun - 248001, India >
