Dear Santhan, Further to my comments about the images of a *Codonopsis* taken in H.P. (above), it is always much more difficult to identify with confidence on the basis of only 1 or 2 images - especially when not close-up or fully in focus. Whilst it is still 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. In the case of photos, if they are not in focus, this makes reliably identifying them *much* harder.
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 - though they need to be in focus. 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.* 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 QUANTITY.* Now let us consider the images taken at Kathi, Pindari glacier way, which after input from Dr Rawat (whose contributions can almost always be relied upon) the suggested identification changed from Cucurbitaceae to *Codonopsis* then *C.viridis*. It is REALLY important to provide the c. altitude where this was found, along with the habitat if that is not clear from the photos. A quick internet search puts the village itself at c. 2200m but presumably the photos could have been from somewhat higher or lower elevation. 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 eFI postings*.. 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. 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 been recorded from Uttarakhand, its known upper altitudinal range being 1200-2700m . 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. I consider it unlikely that the place you photographed this would be 500m+ higher than the village's recorded height (assuming this is accurate), so it certainly is a species worthy of consideration. A quick look at the small photo of *C.viridis* in 'Flowers of the Himalaya' and the brief description suggests that this is the only likely candidate. Whilst one cannot see clearly the interior of the corolla but the first image shows the linear calyx-lobes sufficiently. As far as I know, this characteristic appears diagnostic, at least compared with any other species known from the region. I thus, having not studied the genus fully in the Himalaya, consider, based upon what information I have available, that the plant seems highly likely to be this species. Experience teaches one to be cautious though. ALL genera along the Himalaya require further study, such that the degree of confidence one can have in an identification or a more confident determination, will vary considerably. *One must always remember and this applies to ALL sciences, the best one can ever say, is to the BEST of present-day knowledge. Unfortunately, this requires active engagement with botanists around the world.* *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) who enjoy botanizing as a hobby - though these so-called amateurs are often of professional standard, 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 required, 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.* *UNFORTUNATELY, I NOTE I MADE A SIMILAR PLEA FOR MORE IMAGES TO BE TAKEN PER PLANT PHOTOGRAPHED BACK IN FEBRUARY 2017 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 Monday, November 6, 2017 at 5:26:44 AM UTC, Santhan P wrote: > Wlild climber from Kathi (Pindari Glacier way), Utthrakhand > -- 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.
