Thank you Chadwell ji for your input, we will try to take quality photographs and also maintain herbarium specimens to the extent possible, I am a south Indian botanist, Fortunately happen to visit Himalays this year several times. I am a taxonomist, associated with industrial R&D centres.Here in Himalayas some times very difficult to identify some plants. With Best regards Dr. Santhan P Senior botanist Chennai 600075 9444813474
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:55 AM, J.M. Garg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
