Dinesh Ji, I am really sorry that I gave you a wrong direction, regarding the ID of https://www.flickr.com/photos/dinesh_valke/12909870533/sizes/l. There is a problem here and in the series you have linked <https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Jasminum+coarctatum&d=taken-20140221-20140223&ct=0&mt=all&w=91314344%40N00&adv=1>. I only stressed on bracts, overlooked number of corolla lobes.
Again I think none of the above series is *J. coarctatum*. But, now I am hesitant about *multiflorum* too, for corolla lobes should be 7-9 (FoC), or 6-9 (FoP, FI). Here they are five. The sepals in your pics are long, linear, pubescent; nerves are 4 pairs. If we go through FBI we are left with only *sambac*, *multiflorum* and *malabaricum*. We can skip three or four more for they are not distributed in South-West I think.m Rest of the FBI species have sepals either short to minute lobes or glabrous. We can skip *malabaricum* for number of sec. nerves is more in that species. For, *sambac*, it is a real problem. It can have 5 corolla lobes (FoP). But, in wild form cymes should be few flowered, 3 (FBI), 1-5 (FoC). Roxburgh's *J. bracteatum* <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-351758> is synonymous with *J. pubescens* Willd. of FBI, this var. can have 5 (5-8) corolla lobes (FI). So, please note loops of lateral veins <http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage.do?imageBarcode=K000545670>, your species should not be *sambac*, I think, either *multiflorum* or *bracteatum* Roxb. Please do check your local flora and give your opinion. Thank you Regards surajit On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> wrote: > Surajit ji, thanks very much ... by now, I have lost my familiarity with > *coarctatum* & *multiflorum*; I will have to slowly build it up in due > course by meeting them in future. > > About the point where you are suggesting one of my plants as *multiflorum*, > requesting you to look at other views of the same plant > <https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Jasminum+coarctatum&d=taken-20140221-20140223&ct=0&mt=all&w=91314344%40N00&adv=1> > and express your views with confidence. Will then gladly correct my notes > at flickr. > > Regards. > Dinesh > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:50 PM, surajit koley < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, Dinesh Ji, I agree, I have read about white bracts in FBI, of >> *coarctatum* and *rottlerianum*. FBI says "prominent white" in both. I >> couldn't find, in the net, the paper, 'Taxonomic notes on two...', Santhosh >> Ji mentioned in the thread - >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/indiantreepix/w71Qu08WXV8/kK1z788DNQwJ. >> >> However, Wight recorded, in his Ic Pl >> <http://plantillustrations.org/illustration.php?id_illustration=130341&height=950>, >> bracts of *J. rottlerianum* are with "pale whitish hue". FBI has a var. >> of *rottlerianum*, var. *thwaitesii* from 'Nilgherries' where bracts are >> "whitish". >> >> I can be wrong while trying to guess and express my thoughts about the >> two species, *coarctatum* complex, and *mutiflorum*, my points are - >> >> - in illustration of Burm. f. of *J. multiflorum* >> >> <http://plantillustrations.org/illustration.php?id_illustration=167716&height=750> >> no >> bract can be seen >> - FoC informs bracts in *multiflorum* are leafy, basal ovate, upper >> linear (please also see note in FBI) >> - if you see the corolla tubes in your photographs you will notice >> tube is rather extended, inflated in the upper part, just bellow the >> spreading lobes, which I think are missing in *multiflorum* uploads, >> both in cultivated form and in wild form >> - I think in *multiflorum* corolla tube evenly dilated from base to >> lobes >> - if you permit me I think your >> https://www.flickr.com/photos/dinesh_valke/12909870533/sizes/l >> series is *multiflorum* >> >> Thank you >> Regards >> surajit >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Surajit ji for dissection of the various descriptions ! >>> >>> Just for information, a descriptive name given in Tamil lexicon >>> <http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:6189.tamillex> >>> [Madras], University of Madras for *J. rottlerianum* ... synonym of *J. >>> coarctatum* var *coarctatum*. is *white-bracted jasmine* ! Not sure >>> whether the bracts of *J. coarctatum *are indeed white-coloured; it >>> could also imply the bracts are brighter OR lighter tone than that of other >>> *Jasminum* species. >>> >>> Regards. >>> Dinesh >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:56 PM, surajit koley < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dinesh Ji, >>>> >>>> I think the confusion lies in the description of bracts. Even Flora >>>> Indica recorded bracts are few, lanceolate in *J. pubescens*. >>>> Surprisingly FI doesn't give description of bracts of *J. coarctatum*, >>>> only informs. "amply bracted." >>>> >>>> Sir Prain also recorded that bracts, in *J. pubescens*, often absent, >>>> if present ovate-lanceolate. >>>> >>>> Only Haines, in his BoBO, described "bracts same shape as leaves". >>>> >>>> Perhaps Rheede's illustration may also created confusion which was >>>> addressed in FBI. You might have already read the FBI and other literature. >>>> Yet I attach here the FBI and BoBO entry, for further examination. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> surajit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I went through all the posts in the group's database. Those posted >>>>> from the north India as *J. multiflorum* are definitely different >>>>> from what I have posted. The posted plant agrees very well with *J. >>>>> coarctatum. * >>>>> >>>>> I also found another post from south (Anurag's ANFEB29 >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/indiantreepix/E2v-vQtyIIQ/q1IjXKwogUQJ>) >>>>> which was thought to be *J. multiflorum* - but you have commented as *J. >>>>> coarctatum.* >>>>> >>>>> Many many thanks Surajit ji for validating this ID. Will correct my >>>>> notes at flickr soon. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Dinesh >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, surajitkoley < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dinesh Ji, >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks different to what I have, identified by Santhosh Sir, twice. >>>>>> I think your flickr uploads of *J. multiflorum* and *J. coarctatum* got >>>>>> mixed up. >>>>>> Please correct me if I am wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> surajit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, 2 March 2015 19:44:28 UTC+5:30, Dinesh Valke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [image: Mollem National Park] >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdinesh_valke%2F16693248625&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzdU1yr-dhDNWNlrHzVrIWzDkG3nBQ>Mollem >>>>>>> National Park ... Goa >>>>>>> *Date*: 23 APR 2011 ... *Altitude*: about 200 m asl >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> *Jasminum multiflorum* (Burm.f.) Andrews ... (family: Oleaceae)[image: >>>>>>> Jasminum multiflorum (Burm.f.) Andrews] >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdinesh_valke%2F5661090073&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzeaWMkeNYntYTRPsYw8KmxxrPGyww> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [image: Kunda (Sanskrit: कुन्द)] >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdinesh_valke%2F5661092479&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzfhmc0KlqYQ4SQE2OoH2HCBWdJupQ> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [image: Kunda (Hindi: कुंद)] >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdinesh_valke%2F5661095327&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzebVeQvFjlQPxNRH8Lu8SDawIIO-A> >>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>> Dinesh >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "efloraofindia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
