Dear Dr. Sahani , Over the chat in gtalk I told you that it is not necessary that *Dryopteris* *sp* will always have a reniform sori but you insisted on the matter. I also told you that I too had this idea before was proved wrong when I investigated Panchmari Reserve Forest and in Eastern Himalaya where I extensively worked on pteridophytes for nearly 1 month at each location which really turned my view for this plant group. You suggest me *Ampelopteris prolifera* but I told you that in *Ampelopteris prolifera* the leaflets are shortly petiolate (sometime regarded as sub-sessile) but in *Dryopteris* the base of the leaflet lay completely on the rachis (sessile) and I hope this is an universal character for this genus. I am extremely happy that my research on pteridophytes were worthy and proved me right in this occasion and many others. I am extremely thankful to you for further investigations and bringing the fact to me which proved my thought was right regarding the ID of the plant. Regards Tanay
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Dr. Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]>wrote: > I was a bit confused so I didnt reply earlier. I was of the notion > that Dryopteris should always have kidney shaped sori, on the basis of > which I had considered Mr. Tanay's name as incorrect. But then Dr. > Jatinder Chadha told me that its not necessary. So we both did some > home work and came to the conclusion that the above plant cant be > Dryopteris chrysocoma (Christ) C.Chr.. Infact D. chrysocoma does have > a kindey shaped sori, but during mature condition the shape may not be > clear. > Secondly, according to Jenkins (followed by Dr. S.P.Kullar), Indian > Dryopteris genus has been grouped into 2 sub genus, 1. DRYOPTERIS and > 2. NEPHROCYSTIS. > D. chrysocoma belongs to subgenus Dryopteris; Section Pandae, where > the pinna margin is supposed to be deeply lobed to the costa, which is > not in the present case. > > Description of D. chrysocoma also says that the indusium is reniform, > persistent and they hardly shrivel. In the present picture the > indusium seems to be missing!! and secondly the species is supposed to > be distributed from 1700m - 3300m asl so it cant be a common fern > distributed in North India. > > But we cant conclude anything due to insufficient evidence. > > So we hereby request members who are posting fern pictures, that > please do send the pictures of: > 1. complete plant > 2. one complete frond with the rhizome and stem > 3. closeup of one pinna (both surface) > 4. Closeup of pinnule (both surface) > 5. Closeup of sori. > > This will greatly help in the identification of the species correctly. > > Regards > Pankaj > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "efloraofindia" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<indiantreepix%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix?hl=en. > > -- Tanay Bose +91(033) 25550676 (Resi) 9830439691(Mobile) 9674221362 (Mobile) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "efloraofindia" 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.com/group/indiantreepix?hl=en.
