Satish ji Definitely not Capparis sp as you say. Will respond with some more literature i have on Crataeva sp in a few days' time. Thank you. best wishes geetha
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM, satish pardeshi <[email protected]>wrote: > > hello Dinesh ji and Geetha ji > for this species to be capparis it should have simple leaf. since this > photograph shows trifoliate leaf it can be concluded as Crataeva > species. since the number of stamens varies from 8-20 in genus > crataeva, the plant in consideration fulfill this requirement. but i > have no clue regarding the species of this taxon. > according to my obeservation and reference from Almeida, Fl of > Maharashtra the following can be described as > > 1. Leaves ovate-lanceolate; Berry > ovoid C. magna > 1. Leaves ovate or obovate, not lanceolate; Berry globose > C. tapia > > Crataeva magna (Lour.) DC., Prodr. 1: 243, 1824; Sharma et al, Fl. > India 2: 324, 1993; Pradhan et al, Fl. SGNP 98, 2005. > Synonyms: Capparis magna Lour. Fl. Cochinch. 1: 331, 1790. Crateva > odora Buch.-Ham., Trans. L. Soc. 15: 118, 1827. Crateva tapia L., ssp. > odora (Jacob.) Almeida, Fl. Savantwadi 44, 1990 & in Fl, Mah. 1: 51, > 1996. Crateva odora Buch.-Ham., Trans. L. Soc. 15: 118, 1827. Crateva > religiosa var. nurvala Hook f., Fl. Brit. India 1: 172, 1872; Cooke, > Fl. Pres. Bombay 1: 44, 1958 (Repr.). Crataeva nurvala Ham. in Trans. > L. Soc. 15: 121, 1827. C. roxburghii sensu Graham, Cat. Bombay Pl. 8, > 1839. (non Br., 1826). > Common name: Sacred barna, Three leaves caper, Vai-varna, Wairoda, > Nirvala. > > Crataeva tapia L., Sp. Pl. 1753; Almeida, Fl. Mah. 1: 51, 1996. > Synonyms: Crateva adansonii ssp. odora (Buch.-Ham.) Jacobs in Blumea > 12: 198, 1964; Singh et al, Fl. Mah. St. 1: 223, 2000; Pradhan et al, > Fl. SGNP 98, 2005. Crataeva religiosa Forst. var. religiosa (R. Br.) > sensu Hook f. & Thoms., Fl. Brit. India 1: 172, 1872. C. religiosa > var. roxburghii Cooke, Fl. Pres. Bombay 1: 44, 1958 (Repr.); Hook. f., > Fl. Brit. India 1: 172, 1872. Crataeva religiosa Forst.f., Prodr. 35, > 1786. > > > hope this can solve some confusion > further discuission and reference is still required in this topic on > genus Crataeva > > regards > Satish Pardeshi > > On Jul 4, 10:18 pm, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Geetha ji, > > I remember to have got confused reading various online literature > describing > > disinct *Crateva* species:-- . *adansonii*, . *magna*, . *nurvula*, . * > > religiosa*, . *roxburghii* and their subspecies and varieties. > > I settled to *C. religiosa* -- the leaves being soft and herbacious ... > and > > I am sure I too would be contributing to confusion if what I have, is > going > > to be in fact some other species. > > > > I have jumped to say no to what you have as *Crateva* only because I had > not > > seen such form of tr-foliate leaf, and those conspicuous yellowish to > green > > petals seem to be absent > > I am almost tempted to say you may have a *Capparis* species; yet let > > us depend on Satish ji's knowledge. > > > > Please wait for other friends to comment ... > > Regards. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Padmanabhan Geetha <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear Dinesh ji > > > > > The description given in the source i have quoted distinguished the > species > > > based on details of leaf. And the leaf i see in your photo stream of > *Crateva > > > religiosa* is different from the one i have photographed. > > > > > Further here is something to think over:( and get more confused[?] at > least > > > i am) > > > > > According to Hook.f.&Thomson Fl.British India1: 172,(1872) *C.religiosa > > > var.roxburghii* seem to share characterisitcs of *C adansonii* where > as > > > per some sources specially Gamble, Flroa of madras Presidency there is > also > > > a *C roxburghii* > > > > > According to Gamble *C religios*a is different having caudate > leaflets. > > > Flora of Tamilnadu Carnatic describes a similar species as > > > *C magna*. > > > The tree profile is quite different from the one i see in your photo > stream > > > as also the way the buds are arranged on the floral stalk. > > > > > So what *Crateva sp.* could this be? I am attaching another shot of the > > > leaves. > > > best wishes > > > geetha > > > > > ps *Mavilangam* is the name given to *C adansonii* acc to the Flora of > the > > > Tamilnadu Carnatic > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > >> No. Does not look like *C. adansonii* ... are these tri-foliate > leaves? > > >> *C. adansonii leaves *resemble those of *bael* tree -- dear to Lord > > >> Shiva. > > >> I have some photos at > > >> > http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=91314...@n00&q=Crateva+adansonii&m=text > > > > >> Regards. > > > > >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Padmanabhan Geetha <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > >>> Thank you Satish ji. > > >>> I went through the flora of the Tamilnadu Carnatic to find out the > > >>> possible species. > > > > >>> According to the description available leaves seem to predominate > for > > >>> identifying species > > >>> As per the following description - 3-foliate, leaflets ovate;nerves 5 > > >>> pairs (<7pairs),base oblique, margin entire and apex acuminate.This > seem to > > >>> be *Crateva adansonii.* > > >>> However amongst the description given for flowers the stamen number > is > > >>> given to be 20-25 which alone does not match for the plant i have > > >>> photographed. > > > > >>> So can someone clarify whether i am right in presuming this to be > *Crateva > > >>> adansonii? > > >>> *warm wishes > > >>> geetha > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM, satish pardeshi < > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> it is a Crateva species > > > > >>>> On Jul 1, 9:38 pm, Padmanabhan Geetha <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > Dear Friends > > >>>> > Please id the tree, belongs perhaps to family Capparaceae . > > > > >>>> > Location : Inside Vattakotai fort, located on the eastern coast of > > >>>> > Kanyakumari. This solitary tree was growing in the centre of one > of > > >>>> the > > >>>> > ramparts of the fort. Probably planted as the fort looked very > > >>>> 'pedicured > > >>>> > and manicured' > > >>>> > Taken on 17th June. It was so windy that getting a sharp image > was > > >>>> proving > > >>>> > to be quite a task > > > > >>>> > thanks and best wishes > > >>>> > geetha > > > > >>>> > UT flower.jpg > > >>>> > 78KViewDownload > > > > >>>> > UT full tree copy.jpg > > >>>> > 101KViewDownload > > > > >>>> > UT leaf.jpg > > >>>> > 51KViewDownload > > > > > > > > 328.png > > < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "indiantreepix" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.in/group/indiantreepix?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
