Thanks Dr Thakur for drawing this to my/our attention. Mostly a question of me too rapidly assuming a likely identification without checking properly - especially with plants from what are 'low' elevations for me. As soon as it gets to 2000m or less, my familiarity and knowledge rapidly decreases! I know little of the Mazus genus, largely limited to a casual look at specimens growing around Manali some 30 years ago.... I now see that Stewart gave *Mazus delavayii* as a synonym for *M.japonicus* (also *M.rugosus*). He found this common, ascending to 2100m in rice fields and pond borders in N.Pakistan and Kashmir.
*A common mistake I have observed is for people to assume that 'Flowers of the Himalaya' is a FULL flora. It is merely a guide to a fraction of the total flora (often not much more than 1/10th described or illustrated), concentrating on the commonest and showiest species. Too many users of this book automatically "match" at a quick glance what they see or photograph in the Himalaya with the single photo in that book. Often the image does not show important characteristics which distinguish it from similar species. This leads to numerous misidentifications. Many do not bother to check the geographic distribution, altitudinal range or typical habit for each species to see if the identification makes sense or should be double or triple-checked!* I am not a taxonomist but would think that characteristics of calyces are stronger than the presence or not of runners. * I am curious where the key to Mazus species in H.P. comes from?* I note from images taken in H.P. that some examples have much smaller calyces in relation to the flowers - though these seem also to have the calyx +/- cut to half way as well. *So are these within Mazus surculosus or M. pumilus var. delavayii**?* See: http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Suckering%20Mazus.html (I would not described the calyx as 'toothed') and https://forwildlife.wordpress.com/wild-flowers-of-kalatope-khajjiar-sanctuary/wildflowers-in-june/ (I would say the calyx here is definitely not just toothed and approaches the being lobed half way down). As for the line drawing in FOC for *M.surculosus*, this shows small calyces which could be described as having toothed lobes), see: http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=3540&flora_id=2 and then there are the line drawings for *M.pumilus* see: http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=4701&flora_id=2 (I would say that the images taken by Ashwini certainly have a prominent calyx, small flowers in relation to the calyx and *do not* fit number 3 i.e. var. *delavayii)* *Strange and remiss of the authors to include flowers in the line drawings of M.surculosus and not for M.pumilus which makes it difficult to judge flower/calyx size.* *I remain somewhat uncertain/confused. One problem in interpreting FOI is that the authors, no matter how botanically able, may only have seen specimens from Chinese territory. The variation of species in NW may well be different/not able, so one has to be cautious here.* *Anyhow, I have started to inspect Mazus more closely. The fine photos of Ashwini (which show close-up the characteristics of the calyx) and others plus line drawings in FOC are much more useful than low resolution images of herbarium specimens. As always, "a picture paints a thousand words". Putting into words plant variation is often difficult. Keys should always be viewed with caution and not accepted without question.* The currently accepted name is noted - along with various nomenclatural changes over time. Of course not all changes/revisions are accepted. *I* *approach plant identification as detective work. This is another example and further evidence that we cannot rely solely upon Hooker's 'Flora of British India', which is well out-of-date (though he and other contributors did a remarkable job for the time). Every checklist and flora (no matter how reliable they are) become* *out-of-date as soon as they are published!* On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 13:37:50 UTC+1, JM Garg wrote: > Forwarding again for Id confirmation or otherwise please. > > Some earlier relevant feedback: > The genus Mazus is no longer in the Scrophulariaceae family but Phymaceae > which includes > > The Kew Herbarium image: > http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage.do?imageBarcode=K001117588 > > Photos: > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl > > There are two species of Mazus to consider. In 'Flora Simlensis' there is > also *M.rugosus* - > which Stewart and 'The Plant List' has this as *M.japonicus*. > > Flora Simlensis has *M.japonicus* as the common species at Shimla - he > distinguishes > it by the lack of runners and calyx lobed half-way down cf. shortly > toothed in *M.surculosus*. > > For *M.japonicus* see: > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl > > *Your images show runners. I don't think that Flora Simlensis calyx > characteristic holds true,* > *so M.surculosus does seem the most likely.* > > I have visited Manali several times. In the mid-1980s I led botanical > tours to Lahoul, with Manali as the > base, recording *Mazus surculosus* in the Deodar forest there but did not > consider other species at the time. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Chadwell > > Pl. also check comparative images & keys at Mazus > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus> > > *Mazus* *japonicus* (Thunb.) Kuntze is now a synonym > <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about/#synonym> of *Mazus pumilus *(Burm.f.) > Steenis <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2507398> > This specimen appears to be quite interesting.- from me > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ashwini Bhatia <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Date: 25 September 2016 at 14:50 > Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:252074] Mazus surculosus ABJUL01/12 > To: efloraofindia <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Cc: Ushadi Micromini <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > Found a white *Mazus* on my walk today. Is it normal? To me it looks like *M. > surculosus* only but I could be wrong. Please advise. > > Thanks. > Ashwini > > > > > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
