Thanks, Ashwini ji. I think one of the most confusing genus. On 07-Aug-2017 10:18 AM, "Ashwini Bhatia" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The long-tube pedicularis species, which is very common here above 3000m, > has confused me. I have followed the excellent discussion between Dr Singh, > Tabish ji and other senior members and have at times concluded that the > plants here are *P. siphonantha* but another doubt nags me and I start > looking at the characteristics again. > > Looking at the sketch uploaded by Tabish ji here > <https://08511630493324166816.googlegroups.com/attach/e36d7a85e0216671/Pedicularis.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrEtAptdaht5u2Pj-lcsDLZouMjVcxlJXpSBVs1GmC-hjQBpsFN3snYDVjCrDzlVfJDAcNq5AQ68UVg36SH3zpKVYbfLC8ls6wH-4nBhb2NUrJKOn0g>, > I would say that flowers of our plants are closer to *P. punctata* than *P. > siphonantha* (tube length and its ratio with the calyx). I have included > a photo of our flower (without calyx) on a ruler for comparison below. > Accounting for the absence of calyx in the photograph, the tube length > matches with figure A and so does the shape of the galea. > > However, the lower lip on our flower is narrow (about 7-8mm) while *P. > punctata* should have a broader, 15mm, lower lip. > > The number of lobes on the lower leaves is higher than 6 (see photo). The > petiole is long and not winged. This would suggest *not* *P. punctata* > again. > > Dr Singh had suggested *P. hookeriana* which was described briefly by > Kletter and Kriechbaum here > <https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ODrIXj-48RsC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=pedicularis+hookeriana&source=bl&ots=gUvRh-j7Jt&sig=vv_ReidCDSUxF3FLKEUVghwAg9g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ5tP1nsTVAhUEuI8KHRLiB5UQ6AEITzAN#v=onepage&q=pedicularis%20hookeriana&f=false> > in their 2001 discussion of *P. punctata *but it was concluded that since > the drawing in the 2009 paper shows shorter tube length, *P. hookeriana* > was not a possibility. But the tube length of *P. siphonantha* in the > drawing does not match our sample either. > > Most of the images of *P. siphonantha* available online show a higher > ratio of tube-length to calyx than our flowers here. > > Our plant is gregarious at 3200m with many clumps of flowers. I have tried > to include photos to show that. > > I would request my seniors to look at this species again and advise. I am > at a loss as to which source takes precedence. I apologise for requesting > to open this discussion yet again and hope that you will find merit in > doing so. > > Thanks and regards, > 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 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.
