Wonderful discussions. On 22 Oct 2016 10:02 pm, "Ashwini Bhatia" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Chris, > > Thank you again for taking the time to explain this. If we do not consider > both the books as proper reference then I concur that my plant could be a > variation within the larger ‘connata’ group. You are right that flora of > the Himalaya is not well documented and I hope that the members of this > group make significant progress to remedy that. > > As an untrained botanist I cannot hope to correctly identify plants here > without little or no proper reference material. I had taken ‘ribbed > flowers’ as one of the identification keys which was also confirmed by > Flora of Pakistan (*C. connata: Closely related to Clematis buchananiana** > DC., > but differing by the smaller size of nearly all its parts (leaflets, > flowers & styles) and the sepals without ribs. The tapering filaments > mentioned by Hooker f. & Thomson l.c. are not a reliable character. > Commonly found from 1500-2700 m*). To add to the confusion, several > members of the group have posted photos of *C. connata* from Uttarakhand > and Kashmir with unribbed flowers. Please see; > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/indiantreepix/tw62r7SCrDw > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/indiantreepix/XFcFN-s5gCM > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/indiantreepix/Sjb7p3uVeX8 > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/indiantreepix/74mb4Ou66PI > > The flowers from Bhutan look different from my sample in shape and in the > more woolly leaves. It’s a pity that they do not have a photo of *C. > connata* for comparison. I could not convincingly state that the sample > you pointed me to at KEW was not similar to the plants here. Please forgive > my ignorance. > > There are several of these plants in flower nearby and I could collect > more evidence if you think it will help. I am happy to leave these to *C. > connata* group till further study. > > Thank you for insisting on rigour and discipline in identifications. It > will help all of us! > > Regards, > Ashwini > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 Oct 2016, at 19:44, C CHADWELL <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Ashwini > > I am afraid I must observe that I do not rate Collet's 'Flora Simlensis' > particularly highly. > > Distinguished soldier he may well have been but not a professional > botanist. > There are understandably glowing words about him "In Memoriam" at the > start of the > book but one needs to be cautious about using the book - it has a useful > preliminary > purpose but no more. > > It is a very simplified 'Flora', so has strict limitations. > > As for 'Flowers of the Himalaya' this is an excellent book with few > mistakes but it is not > a flora. It also has its limitations - it is a preliminary guide to a > fraction of the total flora > of the Himalaya. > > *So one cannot use the information contained in either as definitive.* > > I have not seen 'Flora of Chamba' or 'Flora of Kulu' but would not > necessarily count them > as authoritative - the same applies to 'Flora of Lahaul-Spiti'. > > *One must always be mindful that the flora of the Himalaya has not been > well-studied**! * > *We are still learning about the British flora (which is smaller) and we > have* > *had thousands of people looking at it intensively over hundreds of > years....* > > I realise how difficult it is for those who have no other reference > works. Presumably there is > no way you can access your nearest herbarium to get staff to assist in any > way? > > Unless I can personally check voucher specimens, then I cannot rely upon > the contents of > these floras - and must say that I am sure I would have doubts about many > entries in them.... > > I did have at one time a pressed specimen of what I am confident is > *C.buchananiana* which was > growing near Naini Tal. A pity I cannot send an image of this to you. > > IF I am in a position to continue to contribute to this google group, I > shall be questioning a lot more > identifications over many families and numerous genera.... > > In the mean-time, I refer you to: > > http://www.iiim.res.in/herbarium/ranunculaceae/clematis_buchananiana.htm > - this specimen is in > very poor condition with the resolution low so one cannot inspect closely > but is probably correctly > identified - it seems the remarks typed out are copied from a description > in a flora (on the basis of > the identification they claim) rather than from field notes or taken from > the specimen itself. > > http://www.iiim.res.in/herbarium/ranunculaceae/clematis_connata.htm - one > cannot see much of a > disc at the node here either - though may have been more pronounced lower > down the plant. > > http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Lemon%20Clematis.html - this > has been misidentified, it > is *C.connata* - the 'connate' part can be seen. > > There are not many reliable images of *C.buchananiana* linked to 'The > Plant List' but those from Bhutan > show the features of the species well. > > See: http://biodiversity.bt/observation/show/6918 > > According to 'Flora of Bhutan' Vol 1 Part 2 (1984) *C.buchananiana* is > usually brownish pubescent throughout - > petioles *sometimes* broadened and thickened at base and *narrowly* > connate... > > They remark it is a variable species with two varieties having been > reported from Bhutan one with more glabrous leaves. > > They say that forms with pinnate leaves resemble *C.connate* but lack > the broadly-winged petiole bases. > > The specimen collected in Kumaon by Blinkworth in the Kew herbarium shows > general features well. See: http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/ > getImage.do?imageBarcode=K001039669 -* I am sure you would agree that > your specimen does* > *not match this.* > > *There will often be specimens of a plant which seem somewhat intermediate > between two species or at least* > *approach another species. Such variation always presents challenges. > It is worth me repeating my observation* > *that "neatly pigeon-holing" plants into species A or Species B is not > always straightforward.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Chadwell > > > 81 Parlaunt Road > SLOUGH > SL3 8BE > UK > > www.shpa.org.uk > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ashwini Bhatia <[email protected]> > *To:* C CHADWELL <[email protected]> > *Cc:* J.M. Garg <[email protected]>; Saroj Kasaju <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, 22 October 2016, 4:48 > *Subject:* Re: [efloraofindia:254434] Re: Clematis Buchananiana ABJAN01/09 > > Dear Chris, > I have also followed your detailed comments on this. For long I had > thought species here to be *C. connata* but following ID keys by Col. > Collett and Polunin & Stainton, I convinced myself that the flowers here > are *C. buchananiana*. I am listing my reasons; > > Collett; > > Stems faintly grooved, flowers not ribbed……*C. connata* > Stems grooved, *flowers ribbed*……*C. buchananiana* > > Stainton & Polunin; > > Leaf-stalks fused together at the node often into a large flat disc, > petals not ribbed, achenes silky-haired……*C. connata* > Leaf-bases more or less united round stem,* flowers sweet-scented, petals > ribbed,* achenes woolly-haired…..*C. buchananiana* > > The flowers on our plants are definitely sweet-scented and ribbed. That > should place our plants under *C. buchananiana*. However, the leaf-stalks > are jointed mostly into a small flat disc (on the many plants I have > photographed I did not find a ‘large’ disc forming). To my untrained eyes > achenes don’t appear to have silky hair, more woolly-haired. > > Flora of Chamba and Flora of Kullu list both species to be common in their > respective areas. > > These are my reasons to conclude the ID but I am willing to learn. Please > advise. > > Thanks and regards, > Ashwini > > > On 22 Oct 2016, at 08:55, J.M. Garg <[email protected]> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: 22 Oct 2016 7:11 am > Subject: [efloraofindia:254434] Re: Clematis Buchananiana ABJAN01/09 > To: "efloraofindia" <[email protected]> > Cc: > > > Yes, this plant comes within* Clematis connata* (there is a 'connate' > base, though not as pronounced as in some variants). Definitely not > > *> C.buchananiana*. > > > > Please can someone send in some fresh images of this species or look > amongst their past photos to see if they have the real thing. > > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 2:41:27 PM UTC, ashwini wrote: > > > >> > >> This climber with fragrant cream colour flowers is quite common here. I > found one still in flower today and brought it home to have a closer look. > I have always assumed it to be* C. connata* but after studying my sample > today think it to be* C. buchananiana*. The flowers are ribbed and so are > the stalks. Flowers, filaments and stalks are hairy. Please advise. > >> > >> Clematis buchananiana—Fragrant Chinese Clematis > >> Near Dal Lake, Dharamshala Cantt. HP > >> 1800m > >> 17 January 2016. > >> > >> 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 email to [email protected]. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- 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.
