Thanks, Chadwell ji. On 07-Nov-2017 9:32 AM, "[email protected]" < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 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.
