This plant would be P. longifolia Nutt. since corolla has brown spots at base. This plant was named as P. minima in FOS later corrected to above. P. minima is included in FFOS. Regards, Shrikant
On Apr 9, 10:53 am, 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) > > Revisitedhttp://www.plantsystematics.com/qikan/manage/wenzhang/aps06141.pdfto > 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. > > P1160249.jpg > 91KViewDownload > > P1160238.jpg > 166KViewDownload > > P1160240.jpg > 73KViewDownload > > P1160244.jpg > 87KViewDownload > > P1160247.jpg > 96KViewDownload -- 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.
