Thanks a lot, Chadwell ji On 16 Nov 2016 9:48 pm, "C CHADWELL" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Mr Garg > > Whilst I am confident the specimens photographed in the Paddar Valley come > within R.heterodonata, I > am unsure about the images on FOI you refer to, except to say I do not > think they fit *R.heterodonta*. Cannot > come up with a quick suggestion. > > May I repeat that Rhodiola is an extremely difficult genus (hopefully > there may be input by Sedum Society members > in the months to come and what a pity the person taking a special interest > in the genus has passed away). > I shall look into the genus in the Himalaya further in due course but at > this point cannot meaningfully comment further. > Much easier to say what a specimen is not, rather than what it definitely > is. Will not help the situation of frequent misidentifications > by prematurely commenting. > > In some cases the characteristics visible in some photos are insufficient > to be sure. > > *Another complication is that Uttarakhand, which I count as part of > 'Central Himalaya', rather than 'Western' or North-Western,* > *as I think makes the most sense floristically/plant geographically, has > species which are not found in the North-West Himalaya* > *(Kashmir/H.P.) I know such species less well.* > > *A wise starting point is for me to focus on North-West Himalaya, whilst > commenting as best I can on plants from Uttarakhand,* > *Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan (whose floras I know less well) and have less > reference material I can have confidence in.* > > *So much in plant identification is about levels/degrees of confidence in > an identification (or determination) not complete* > *certainty. And this particularly applies when naming from photos > especially, only one or two, often not in good close-up which* > *do not reveal **diagnostic characteristics used in a herbarium.* > > Your site has so much potential but it is important that the level of > accuracy of identifications is as high as can be achieved, for a number of > reasons. There will be some senior botanists who may feel it is not > possible to reliably identify plants on the basis of photos only. For the > sight to maintain credibility in the botanical community and "set an > example for others to follow" accuracy and reliability is essential. > > Another consideration is how the site is used, which I shall comment about > further in the future. The 'Flowers of the Himalaya' guide by Polunin & > Stainton is of a high standard (though a few errors inevitably crept in) > but I know how badly it is used by many people in the West and India. All > printed publications are out-of-date as soon as they are published. > > People are not taught how to identify plants nowadays (were they ever, I > wonder). *I studied Biology at school in the 1970s (to what are now GCSE > standard with exams at age 16; A level with exams at 18 and a degree in > botany but was never 'taught' how to identify plants*). *Nowadays, in A > level Biology plants are barely covered at all, let alone much if anything > to do with field-work/skills or how tom identify them*. > > It is all very well having something of high standard if it is > used poorly. *A fundamental point which needs to be put across is that > one often cannot reliably identify a plant from a single photo by matching > with a single image in a book (or nowadays a web-site). Plants in the > wild need to be examined more closely with more images taken per plant and > with more than a single reference image being available on a web-site and > these with trustworthy identifications.* > > In the past, it was only economic to have a single photo (or line drawing > or painting) reproduced in a printed book and only 1 or 2 photos taken per > plant in the wild(seldom in close-up) which was the best that could be > done. The situation has changed but this needs to filter through to > photographers and users of your site. I myself, have only realised the > full potential of digital photography of plants in the past couple of > years, so must realise that it will take many years before others recognise > it. > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Chadwell > > > 81 Parlaunt Road > SLOUGH > SL3 8BE > UK > > www.shpa.org.uk > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* J.M. Garg <[email protected]> > *To:* C CHADWELL <[email protected]> > *Cc:* efloraofindia <[email protected]>; Suresh Kumar Rana < > [email protected]>; Tabish <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 16 November 2016, 10:02 > *Subject:* Re: Fwd: [efloraofindia:135919] Rhodiola heterodonta from > Paddar valley J&K > > Thanks, Chadwell ji, > In view of your remarks, image of *Rhodiola bupleuroides* in FOI > <http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Bhutan%20Rhodiola.html> from > Valley of Flowers may be of some other species (may be of *Rhodiola > heterodonta *only) > Pl. confirm. > > On 6 November 2016 at 18:43, C CHADWELL <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear All > > *The images from Paddar Valley are of Rhodiola heterodonta and not > R.bupleuroides.* > > May I start be repeating that Rhodiola is an extremely difficult genus > identification-wise. Misidentifications > occur frequently. The situation is complicated by a lot of pressed > specimens in the past being of poor quality > which were badly pressed. *If one attempts to dry Crassulaceae in a > normal way compared with specimens* > *belonging to other families, the results can be poor, with all the leaves > falling off!* > > *I am making an effort with the Rhodiola genus in the NW Himalaya but am > **still > **not certain about a number of species -* > *so cannot yet undertake a full appraisal of all posting on efi. > Hopefully, shall be able to do so at some stage in the future* > *as the situation is in need of improvement.* > > *Given the poor reference specimens (inadequate)* in most Indian herbaria > (and some other herbaria around the world) > it is hardly surprising that something of a muddle exists. > > With the advent of good compact digital cameras, provided those taking > pictures in the coming years operate in a methodical > way and take 10-20 images of each specimen from which they can select the > best/most informative 6-10 to post, our understanding > of this troublesome genus can greatly improve. *So please take more > images of Rhodiolas in the Himalaya from 2017 onwards* > *but please, not just 1 or 2 general shots not showing close-up detail.* > > As with pressed specimens for herbaria if scrappy specimens are collected > in the first place and then one is faced with poor > quality reference specimens in herbaria, the muddle will continue. *We > need more and better close-up images of ALL species* > *of Rhodiola in India (and other genera in the Crassulaceae family*). > > *I have seen a number of false claims of Rhodiola bupleuroides from > Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh - yet it is only recorded from West Nepal > Eastwards!* > > The images taken by Suresh match *R.heterodonta* - please note the second > image illustrates that the stamens are longer than the petals (which when > this characteristic is visible) is one of the features which distinguish it > from *R.bupleuroides* (not that I am familiar with this species). > > Stewart (1972) recorded R.heterodonta from 2400-5000m in Kashmir incl. > Ladakh. I have seen it in Ladakh & Lahoul. Stewart knew it as Sedum roseum > var. heterodontum. > > *R,bupleuroides* is recorded in 'Flora of Lahaul-Spiti' as rare in rock > crevices at Jispa. I have not seen the voucher specimen but I suspect it > to be a misidentification. > > The situation is complicated by misidentified images available on the > internet of both live plants in the wild and cultivation and pressed > specimens. > > Please note that the following link referred to is a *complete* mix-up as > the specimen show from Bhutan (as it correctly says on the label) is of a > Phlomis which belongs to the Lamiaceae family and looks nothing like > Crassulaceae! see: http://www.tropicos.org/Image/ 100177639 > <http://www.tropicos.org/Image/100177639> > > As for another link: http://www.tropicos.org/Name/ 8903316?tab=images > <http://www.tropicos.org/Name/8903316?tab=images>. These show quite a > number of images of mostly poor pressed specimens - have only glanced at > them but they show more than one species of Rhodiola! > > *I am not impressed with this tropicos site - do not know who is > responsible for it or the misidentifications!* > > *Given how difficult the genus is, such completely unscientific > contributions will only increase the muddle!!* > > > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Chadwell > > > 81 Parlaunt Road > SLOUGH > SL3 8BE > UK > > www.shpa.org.uk > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* J.M. Garg <[email protected]> > *To:* efloraofindia <indiantreepix@googlegroups. com > <[email protected]>> > *Cc:* Suresh Kumar Rana <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, 6 November 2016, 6:18 > *Subject:* Fwd: [efloraofindia:135919] Rhodiola heterodonta from Paddar > valley J&K > > It appears closer to Rhodiola bupleuroides as per the following: > http://www.tropicos.org/Image/ 17648 <http://www.tropicos.org/Image/17648> > http://www.tropicos.org/Image/ 100177639 > <http://www.tropicos.org/Image/100177639> > http://www.tropicos.org/Name/ 8903316?tab=images > <http://www.tropicos.org/Name/8903316?tab=images> > http://www.asianflora.com/ Crassulaceae/Rhodiola- bupleuroides.htm > <http://www.asianflora.com/Crassulaceae/Rhodiola-bupleuroides.htm> > http://www.efloras.org/object_ page.aspx?object_id=88995& flora_id=800 > <http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=88995&flora_id=800> > http://www.biora.ru/modules. php?name=invitro&file=spec1& > sid=19701&gid=202&fid=178 > <http://www.biora.ru/modules.php?name=invitro&file=spec1&sid=19701&gid=202&fid=178> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Suresh Kumar Rana* <[email protected]> > Date: 22 October 2012 at 23:24 > Subject: [efloraofindia:135919] Rhodiola heterodonta from Paddar valley J&K > To: efloraofindia <indiantreepix@googlegroups. com > <[email protected]>> > > > Request for ID confirmation > > Kindly confirm this Id > Bot. name: Rhodiola heterodonta > Family: Crassulaceae > Location: Paddar valley J&K > Altitude: 3100 meters > Date: 17th May 2012 and 9th June 2011 > > -- > Warm regards > Suresh Rana > > -- > > > > > > > -- > With regards, > J.M.Garg > 'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna' > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmgarg1> > Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/award-for-efloraofindia>. > For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, > please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indiantreepix> (largest in the > world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia > website <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/> (with a species > database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images). > The whole world uses my Image Resource > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:J.M.Garg> of more than a > thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. > (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as > per Creative Commons license attached with each image. > Also author of 'A Photoguide to the Birds of Kolkata & Common Birds of > India'. > > > > > > -- > With regards, > J.M.Garg > 'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna' > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmgarg1> > Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/award-for-efloraofindia>. > For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, > please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indiantreepix> (largest in the > world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia > website <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/> (with a species > database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images). > The whole world uses my Image Resource > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:J.M.Garg> of more than a > thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. > (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as > per Creative Commons license attached with each image. > Also author of 'A Photoguide to the Birds of Kolkata & Common Birds of > India'. > > > -- 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.
