Thanks, Chadwell ji.
On 07-Nov-2017 8:29 AM, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 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.
