* Dear Dinesh ji, I 've also read the mentioned paper "The myth of “minima” and “maxima”, the species of Physalis". This way u are right ur photograph matche with P. lagascae Satish * On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear friends, > *Physalis minima* for discussion. > > > *Date/Time* : April 3, 2010 at 1.10pm IST > *Location Place* : Yeoor Hills (part of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, > Mumbai) ... *Altitude* : 66 m ... *GPS* : 19°14'14.75"N, 72°57'52.23"E > *Habitat* : wild ... *Type* : mixed deciduous forest > *Plant Habit* : herbaceous bush ... *Height *: 30 - 50 cm ... *Length* : - > not a climber - > *Leaves Type *: simple, alternate, margin entire, or shallowly toothed > ... *Shape* : ovate-lanceolate (variable) ... *Size* : 4 - 6 (12) cm x 2.5 > - 3 (7) cm > *Inflorescence Type* : solitary ... *Size* : - > *Flowers Size* : 6 - 8 mm ... *Colour* : off-white to pale yellow, > brownish spots at base ... *Calyx* : triangular, 3 - 5 mm long ... *Bracts > * : - > *Fruits Type* : berry (edible), enclosed in calyx ... *Shape *: globose > ... *Size* : about 1 cm ... *Seeds* : about 2 mm, flat disc-shaped or > broadly reniform > > *Other Info* : > *Fragrance* : do not know ... *Pollinator* : do not know ... *Uses* : of > medicinal value, fruits eaten. > > > > > Photos at flickr photostream, triggered Muthu ji to query whether the plant > would be *P. angulata* ...or... *P. lagascae*. > My feeling was *P. minima* (syn. *P. lagascae*) as per NPGS / GRIN ... > because the flowers have yellow-brown anthers unlike bluish in *P. > angulata* (Ref; > http://www.missouriplants.com/Yellowalt/Physalis_angulata_page.html) > > > > Revisited > http://www.plantsystematics.com/qikan/manage/wenzhang/aps06141.pdf to > check on Muthu ji's query, > The PDF article: *The myth of “minima” and “maxima”, the species of > Physalis* is interesting; talks about confusion regarding *P. minima* on > Indian subcontinent > It highlights one species confused for other. *P. minima* has naturalized > pan-tropically, is a fact. > However, its description could be loose enough for mistaking it for another > species, at least on the Indian subcontinent, specifically *P. lagascae*. > > > > > As per this article, my posted plant could be thus *P. lagascae*. > > Comments please. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- Dr. Satish Kumar Chile -- 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.
