I think it was nice to have a lot of discussion on this important subject. I thank and appreciate the comments made by members, which everybody will keep in their mind. This has helped in the growth of the group. I can say that we should close this topic here only. Regards Satish Phadke
2009/11/3 Satish Phadke <[email protected]> > I want to make clear that I am not in favour of or against digital > photography. > One point in favour of digital photography: > Taxonomist and botanists use small hand held lenses to observe tiny parts > of the plants. > The macro lenses replace these and to one's surprise when he goes back to > his computer after the field visit the observations are found to be far > better than actual field observations. Even the freshness of the parts is > preserved in the picture as against the herbarium samples. > > After some time the era of digital herbarium is going to come. The > limitations about it will be sorted out by some experts e.g.pictures can be > taken with ruler kept by the side of specimen etc. > (Myself being a medical doctor can site one comparable example: Earlier use > of sonography(Ultrsound test) in pregnancy for monitoring fetal development > used to be taken with a pinch of salt because of its limitations but now a > days no pregnancy continues without at least one sonography test... > Technology used judiciously has its own advantages. The interpreter behind > it of course matters a lot.) > I urge in this forum to all experts to device methods to sort out problems > and limitations of digital photography similar to what Gurcharan ji and > Aparna ji have always suggested. In this way the internet and other > technologial gadgetary will be properly used for the benefit of the science. > Dr Satish Phadke > > 2009/11/3 Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> > > >> I know such discussions will crop up when persons from so many fields >> interact. The main aim of this group, I think is to encourage more and >> more >> people to look at plants, know about their uses, local names, and >> ultimately >> it would be a big step towards environmental management. >> I have been practicing taxonomy for last 40 years, but the madness >> about plants started only after I joined this group. We the taxonomists >> are >> often happy to pick up the local flora and identify the plants, not >> realising that a few related species must have cropped in into the area >> after that local flora was published. Only after joining this group I came >> to know about plants which I thought something else from Maheshwari's >> Flora >> of Delhi. This I know must have also been the experience of other >> colleagues. Sometimes I am amazed by the critical eye of Tabish ji, Garg >> ji >> and others not professional taxonomists. >> I know and many others must be feeling how useful the FlowersofIndia >> website is for identification. We are all learning and let us encourage >> others. >> All of us know Poaceae and Cyperaceae are difficult to identify, but >> once >> one of us has spent time on identification, there are always some physical >> markers to remember identification of that grass or sedge. When we >> identify >> hundreds of plants (including grasses and sedges) in our ecology/taxonomy >> classes, or herbarium identification, we seldom look for books. If these >> photographs go to our websites, it would help in awareness about grasses >> and >> sedges. >> >> My personal request! Let us not discourage members from taking photos >> of grasses and sedges, rather encourage them and urge them to include >> shots >> of auricles and ligules, closeup of spikelets. The digital photography >> today allows clearer view than our naked eyes. >> >> Today herbaria are discouraging taxonomists from handling of actual >> specimens, and rather use their virtual herbaria. We should be happy that >> we >> are using photgraphs of live plants with everything preserved. >> Good photography for all >> >> >> >> >> Dr. Gurcharan Singh >> Associate Professor >> SGTB Khalsa College >> University of Delhi, Delhi >> India >> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45 <http://people.du.ac.in/%7Esinghg45> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Aparna Watve" <[email protected]> >> To: "Vijayasankar Raman" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "J.M. Garg" <[email protected]>; "Nayan Singh" >> <[email protected]>; "indiantreepix" >> <[email protected]>; "grassman" <[email protected]>; >> "Avinash dada" <[email protected]>; "Rani Bhagat" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:18 PM >> Subject: [indiantreepix:22157] Re: Grass for id 031109jm2 >> >> >> > >> > Dear all, >> > As a short answer to the earlier mails, - I stand by what I said in >> > spite of the issues Garg ji has raised. Some reasons have already >> > been pointed out by Vijay ji. >> > >> > Before I proceed to give a long answer, I would like to ask all here >> > some questions, >> > a. What is the accuracy of identification that we are aiming for? >> > My answer -for every plant I want a "scientifically accurate" >> > identification. >> > >> > b. What is the reason for scientific accuracy? >> > Because I see that handbooks and electronic databases, are now very >> > commonly being used for ecological surveys, environment impact >> > assessments, teaching, making books, making environment education >> > material, species distribution mapping, natural resource management >> > planning, ( For each of this- I can give an example from real life >> > where it was done). All this work requires scientific accuracy of >> > identification. Even many of the laymen (-a word I dont like to use) >> > are experts in their own field where they use this knowledge, for >> > example ayurvedic doctors who want to know plants to be used in >> > medicine. >> > >> > c. Can we guarantee scientific accuracy of identification from a photo? >> > But before that, what kind of photo? - a simple reporting picture (as >> > are most on this mailing list) lacks most characters of id. I always >> > try to point out what more is required and some like Dr. Satish Phadke >> > are taking more and more pics with necessary key characters. >> > >> > For the tricky families, if a person can take a picture showing all >> > necessary characters for the identification it will be possible to id >> > even grasses,sedges, eriocaulons clearly. But with the characters in >> > question, it will mean not only macro photos, but scanning electron >> > micrographs for characters of nut. How many can do this? >> > >> > It is true that an expert, with his vast field knowledge can take one >> > look at a specimen and tell you what it is. Rani and Anilkumar (I know >> > both of them personally) on this group who know grasses well can do >> > it, . They have certain field characters in their mind by which they >> > do it, and they will turn out to be correct in most cases. But if >> > others try to use that photo for more identifications from similar >> > looking plants, they might get it wrong. >> > >> > Dr. S. R. Yadav, of Kolhapur university and his PHD students working >> > on Poaceae of Maharashtra have developed an EXCELLENT set of >> > photographs of grass genera, from which identification is easy and >> > ACCURATE. I do hope they publish it soon. If one can get pictures like >> > that, then I will not mind id from digital photos. >> > >> > for the rest of garg ji's points- >> > >> >> We can't wait for the perfect things (which never will in any case) to >> >> happen. >> > - It is not perfection but ACCURACY being discussed. Even a bad photo >> > of a tiger is enough for id. But with the greatest photo of flowering >> > sedge it still is difficult to accurately distinguish Pycreas and >> > Cyperus. >> > >> >> Our Floras only bulky technical details, hardly readable to a laymen. >> > Well I agree only partially to this, some floras of present are not >> > even good enough for a trained experienced taxonomist to use. But >> > please remember that floras were and will be written for those trained >> > in the subject. If a person trains him/herself to understand the >> > subject (like many notable examples on this group) they will follow it >> > too. >> > BTW, any technical subject book is going to be difficult to follow for >> > a person not from the background. I can hardly hope to easily >> > understand medical textbooks, or computer software books, though I >> > would love to diagnose my own sickness and write my own software >> > programmes. >> > >> >>Or we simply stop photographing or knowing about Poaceae, Cyperaceae >> etc. >> > Well this is subjective. Those who want, can continue to do it as it >> > is, (and I attach the taxonomist's warning) or do it after reading up >> > technical literature on identification of these species and try and >> > get as many characters in the photo as possible (in that case my >> > warnings become little diluted, depending on the nature of the >> > photograph....) >> > >> > Also as I have worded the warning, - it says "confirm" the >> > identification. A "confirmed identification" is where there is no >> > doubt remaining about the identity of the species in that photograph. >> > A simple identification is where there remains a chance that the >> > identification is wrong, and hence use of that identification is at >> > the person's own risk. The photo and subsequent comments on it can >> > give pointers, indications, as I usually try to give (for less complex >> > families), if I am not sure about identification based on the photo >> > alone. >> > >> > Perhaps you should also put this subject on the mailing list of Indian >> > Association of Angiosperm Taxonomists. It will be most interesting to >> > hear their views. >> > >> > Regards >> > Aparna >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
