Dear Dr Goraya, I enjoyed viewing your pretty pictures, in good focus. However, it is always much more difficult to identify with confidence on the basis of only 1 or 2 images - nice though they may well be and in sharp focus (which is important). Whilst it is possible to do this, especially for distinctive examples, particularly if those specialists familiar with a genus or regional flora are available to inspect them but otherwise, it can be difficult, at best, time consuming, often *impossible to arrive at a determination one can have confidence in*. Many more images are needed including close-up detail of floral parts and foliage. In the past, definite identification took place by comparison of dried, pressed specimens of each plant with reference specimens stored in cabinets in herbaria. The reliability of the resultant identifications depends upon the quality of both the freshly collected specimen and reference ones found in any herbarium plus the availability of taxonomists with specialist knowledge of 'difficult' genera. The poorer, scrappier the specimens, the hardier the process is.
Nowadays, if one is to substitute photos for specimens (as few people are now permitted to gather pressed specimens these days), each time someone photographs a plant, they need to be taking *many* more images if they are to seek a reliable identification - with today's digital cameras, it costs practically nothing to take *as many* images as one likes. Nowadays, I typically take 20-30 images per plant. Once one gets into the habit of doing this, it does not take that long! For further information of what should be done, see: https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/; whilst https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/impatiens-1 provides an example of the detail which a modest digital camera can produce for *Impatiens glandulifera*; I have only just started my 'Flowers of the North-West Himalaya - a virtual guide..' so have yet to cover *Codonopsis*. There is a widespread and long-standing belief (both in India and the West) that one can take just one or two images (when I began serious botanizing in the 1980s, this was the most one could afford and even with a quality macro-lens and tripod one did not obtain comparable close-ups to those one can readily take, with some practise using today's digital cameras) and rapidly 'match' them with one or two images in a book or on the internet (I advise eFI members that a significant proportion of the images one finds by typing a species name into a search engine have been misidentified). *I must emphasise that this 'belief' is incorrect and should be challenged. The reason for this is that 'nice' though the photographs may or may not be, they often do not show sufficient close-up detail, indeed on many occasions do not reveal the diagnostic characteristics. Plant identifications which can be relied upon, have traditionally and largely remain, based upon characteristics which can be observed on dried pressed specimens in herbaria - at times examination using hand lenses (@ x10 magnification or higher), binocular* *microscopes (@ x20-40 magnification or even greater scrutiny are required, not features seen on fresh plants in the wild with the naked eye or non-close-up photos. So IF we are to largely replace herbarium specimens, it is essential that plant photographers take the time and effort to record each specimen they come across in depth, with many more images. But it is not simply a question of the number of images but their quality and which characteristics they illustrate! As always, the emphasis be QUALITY rather than QUALITY.* Now let us consider the images taken at c. 3000m in the GHNP, Kulu, H.P. with the identification of *Codonopsis viridis*. It is certainly a *Codonopsis* which is quite a distinctive genus but it is not always possible to* readily* distinguish between the species, so if one does not have close-ups of different floral parts and/or foliage, this becomes more challenging. Leaving aside the morphological features, the geographic location, elevation found and habitat must be taken into consideration before suggesting an identification - *frequently, this does happen in postings*.. According to 'Flowers of the Himalaya' (please note this is *not* a flora but merely a brief guide to *common* and *showier* species which only covers *a fraction* of the total flora - and is now 30+ years out-of-date in terms of nomenclature and taxonomic treatments) *C.viridis* has never been recorded from Himachal Pradesh, its known upper altitudinal limit being 2700m - 300m lower than where it was photographed. Whilst extensions to geographic and altitudinal ranges do occur, in most cases they are unlikely, so one should examine images more closely and re-think which species one thinks it *might* be. A quick look at the small photo of *C.viridis* in 'Flowers of the Himalaya' and the brief description, clearly do not match the above images. The features of its corolla and calyx-lobes are markedly different. Based upon the two images and known information, they are indeed close to *Codonopsis rotundifolia* Benth. as Mr Garg suggests. This species, according to 'Flowers of the Himalaya' has been recorded from Pakistan to Central Nepal @ 1800-3600m. PLEASE, on future occasions, adopt my approach (you are in an ideal position to set an example for others to follow) of taking 20-30 images per plant (from which, dependent upon the species, perhaps 10-12 can be posted onto eFI to cover the important parts - it would be helpful if, for *every* genus, especially those which are difficult to identify, members are told which 'bits' are especially important, at times, *essential* to photograph; they may not be the prettiest but are the most important). IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF ENTRIES ON EFI THAT MATTERS BUT THEIR QUALITY ALONG WITH THE RELIABILITY OF THE IDENTIFICATIONS. *If data-bases, whether on-line or in 'floras' are littered with misidentifications along with out-of-date nomenclature and taxonomic treatment, these do not help clarify/improve the situation but ADD to the muddle and confusion.* In the UK we are fortunate to have the BSBI - Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland, which has long combined the outstanding efforts of both professional botanists and amateur ones (i.e. those who are not employed as a botanist) - the so-called amateurs are often of professional standard. Even in Britain, amateurs make a vital contribution to the study of our flora. *Members of eFI, no matter what their age or background, with an interest in plants, are in a position to TRANSFORM the study of Indian flora - through quality plant photography using digital cameras (the more expensive top end of the range are not require, indeed for most people are not suitable to use). But they need to explore further into the countryside - whether mountainous or not and take MANY MORE, CLOSE-UP IMAGES, IN GOOD FOCUS (along with shots of habitat). If anyone does not know what to do, consult my FLOWERS OF THE NORTH-WEST HIMALAYA digital flora, see: https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/ <https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/> - whilst I specialise in Himalayan plants, my comments apply world-wide.* *Do take advantage of this opportunity to help study Indian plants in greater detail.* I have just checked https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/a---l/c/campanulaceae/codonopsis and find the same two images already there, named as *Condopsis rotundifolia!* I am confused as to why, seemingly, these images have been submitted again? *UNFORTUNATELY, I NOTE I MADE A SIMILAR PLEA FOR MORE IMAGES TO BE TAKEN PER PLANT PHOTOGRAPHED BACK IN FEBRUARY WHEN POSTING IMAGES OF THE CORRECT CODONOPSIS OVATA.* *Seems what I am urging is mostly falling on deaf ears. It clearly needs the active support of senior figures within eFI..........* On Friday, July 11, 2014 at 7:45:10 AM UTC+1, gurinder goraya wrote: > Dears, > > *Codonopsis viridis* from GHNP, Dist. Kullu.... alt. 3000 m asl. > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > *Dr. G. S. Goraya, IFS*Deputy Director General (Research), > Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, > New Forest P.O., DEHRADUN - 248 006. > Uttarakhand, India. > > Tel & Fax (O): 0135-2757775 > -- 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.
