Thanks, Chadwell ji, for your detailed reply. On 07-Nov-2017 10:19 AM, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Mr Garg?, > > Yes, your images are of *immature* capsules of a *Codonopsis*. However, > it is always much more difficult to identify with confidence on the > basis of even 4 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 (not > available on this occasion) and foliage - it would have been helpful to > have close-ups of both upper and lower surfaces of leaves incl. both upper > and lower leaves if there was any difference, edge of leaves and shape of > base etc.. 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 QUANTITY.* > > > Now let us consider the images taken during a trek between 3300-4200m in > Uttarakhand 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. On this occasion one does have in focus close-ups > of calyces. 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 - at least 600m lower than where it was photographed - an > approximate elevation was not given, so it might have been photographed > much higher.. 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. *On the > basis of likely elevation, it would be very surprising for this to be the > correct species.* > > 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 calyx-lobes are markedly different - they are > *not > linear.* As its capsules are immature, it is difficult to be certain > about shape when mature. > > *Based upon the images and known information, they are in fact close to > Codonopsis rotundifolia Benth. - NOT C.viridis*. The former species, > according to 'Flowers of the Himalaya' has been recorded from Pakistan to > Central Nepal @ 1800-3600m - which fits. > > *I have a copy of Smythe's 'Valley of Flowers' - the only Codonopsis it > mentions is C.rotundifolia, which was described in both a moist situation > amongst rocks and here and there Geum also creeping and twining itself > about the stalks of larger flowers.* One would not expect *C.viridis* to > be found during this trek, as it is well above any previously known > records, between 600-1500m higher, which is quite a difference. *The > highest record for C.rotundifolia is 3600m,* > *according to 'Flowers of the Himalaya'.* > > 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. This example shows the importance of being able to > recognise species in the autumn months/fruiting stages. Not forgetting c. > location, altitude, habitat.* > > 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 Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 6:13:05 AM UTC, JM Garg wrote: > >> Wild Herb captured on 13/8/10 during the trek from Ghangaria (around >> 11,000 ft.) to Hemkunt Sahib (around 14000 ft.). >> -- >> With regards, >> J.M.Garg ([email protected]) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmgarg1 >> 'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna' >> The whole world uses my Image Resource of more than a *thousand species* >> & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. (arranged >> alphabetically & place-wise): http://commons.wikimedia.org/w >> iki/Category:J.M.Garg. You can also use them for free as per liberal >> licensing conditions attached with each image. >> For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, >> please visit/ join our Google e-group- Efloraofindia:http://groups.go >> ogle.co.in/group/indiantreepix (more than 1420 members & 52,000 messages >> on 26/10/10 & with a database of around 4200 species on 30/9/10) >> >> -- > 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 email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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.
