Forwarding for ID Distributed as Mazus goodeniifolius ? <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus/mazus-goodeniifolius> Group discussion at Mazus surculosus ? (google.com) <https://groups.google.com/g/indiantreepix/c/ZXuyvL7WLVU>
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:23:15 PM UTC+5:30 JM Garg wrote: > Thanks, Chadwell ji. > As per GBIF <http://www.gbif.org/species/8313105> & Catalogue of Life > <http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/c4ae77d1e09ac2a34347edcecde04895> > it > is accepted name, while The Plant List Ver.1.1 > <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2507428> states it to be > (unresolved). > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: C CHADWELL <[email protected]> > Date: 18 October 2016 at 00:51 > Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:253424] Re: Mazus surculosus ? > To: "J.M. Garg" <[email protected]> > > > Unfortunately, Mazus goodenifolius is not an accepted name in 'The Plant > List'. > > Stewart knew it as a 'tropical' plant with records from Sind & Punjab. > > Because it has been identified as this does not mean it definitely is. > > Cannot easily find an accepted synonym which is accepted either - > under Gratiola e.g. > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Chadwell > > > 81 Parlaunt Road > SLOUGH > SL3 8BE > UK > > www.shpa.org.uk > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* J.M. Garg <[email protected]> > *To:* Ashwini Bhatia <[email protected]> > *Cc:* C CHADWELL <[email protected]>; efloraofindia < > [email protected]>; Anil Thakur <[email protected]>; Alok > Mahendroo <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, 17 October 2016, 12:51 > *Subject:* Re: [efloraofindia:253424] Re: Mazus surculosus ? > > There is one more option as discussed in details of Alok ji's plant from > Himachal: Mazus goodeniifolius ? > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus/mazus-goodeniifolius> > On 11 October 2016 at 08:13, Ashwini Bhatia <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Chris. I agree, this needs further consideration. > > Regards, > Ashwini > > On 10 Oct 2016, at 18:22, C CHADWELL <chrischadwell261@btinternet. com> > wrote: > > The additional observations and photos are helpful. > > I think this illustrates that this genus needs further study/checking. > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Chadwell > > > 81 Parlaunt Road > SLOUGH > SL3 8BE > UK > > www.shpa.org.uk > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ashwini Bhatia <[email protected]> > *To:* chrischadwell261@btinternet. com > > *Cc:* efloraofindia <indiantreepix@googlegroups. com>; Anil Thakur < > [email protected]> > > > *Sent:* Friday, 7 October 2016, 11:21 > *Subject:* Re: Mazus surculosus ? > > Dear Chris and Dr Thakur, > Thank you both very much for your advice. My apologies for a late reply! I > wanted to revisit the plant and collect more evidence before writing. I > found the plant this morning and here are some observations with > photographs; > > 1. Calyx lobes (8-9mm) are longer than the peduncle (5mm) > 2. Calyx lobe edges are not toothed > 3. The stem bearing flowers is hairy and runner-like > 4. Flowers edge out the calyx slightly in corolla length. > > Please advise. > > Thanks. > Ashwini > > > <_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_ 7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_ > 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_ > 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_ 07Oct2016.jpg> > > On 7 Oct 2016, at 01:00, chrischadwell261@btinternet. com wrote: > > Thanks Dr Thakur for drawing this to my/our attention. Mostly a question > of me too rapidly assuming a likely identification without checking > properly - especially with plants from what are 'low' elevations for me. > As soon as it gets to 2000m or less, my familiarity and knowledge rapidly > decreases! I know little of the Mazus genus, > largely limited to a casual look at specimens growing around Manali some > 30 years ago.... I now see that Stewart gave *Mazus delavayii* as a > synonym for *M.japonicus* (also *M.rugosus*). He found this common, > ascending to 2100m in rice fields and pond borders in N.Pakistan and > Kashmir. > > *A common mistake I have observed is for people to assume that 'Flowers of > the Himalaya' is a FULL flora. It is merely a guide to a fraction of the > total flora (often not much more than 1/10th described or illustrated), > concentrating on the commonest and showiest species. Too many users of > this book automatically "match" at a quick glance what they see or > photograph in the Himalaya with the single photo in that book. Often the > image does not show important characteristics which distinguish it from > similar species. This leads to numerous misidentifications. Many do not > bother to check the geographic distribution, altitudinal range or typical > habit for each species to see if the identification makes sense or should > be double or triple-checked!* > > I am not a taxonomist but would think that characteristics of calyces are > stronger than the presence or not of runners. * I am curious where the > key to Mazus species in H.P. comes from?* > > I note from images taken in H.P. that some examples have much smaller > calyces in relation to the flowers - though these seem also to have the > calyx +/- cut to half way as well. *So are these within Mazus > surculosus or M. pumilus var. delavayii**?* > > See: http://www.flowersofindia.net/ catalog/slides/Suckering% 20Mazus.html > <http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Suckering%20Mazus.html> (I > would not described the calyx as 'toothed') and > https://forwildlife.wordpress. > com/wild-flowers-of-kalatope- khajjiar-sanctuary/ wildflowers-in-june/ > <https://forwildlife.wordpress.com/wild-flowers-of-kalatope-khajjiar-sanctuary/wildflowers-in-june/> > (I > would say the calyx here is definitely not just toothed and approaches the > being lobed half way down). > > As for the line drawing in FOC for *M.surculosus*, this shows small > calyces which could be described as having toothed lobes), see: > http://www.efloras.org/object_ > page.aspx?object_id=3540& flora_id=2 > <http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=3540&flora_id=2> > and then there are the line drawings for *M.pumilus* see: > http://www.efloras.org/object_ > page.aspx?object_id=4701& flora_id=2 > <http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=4701&flora_id=2> (I > would say that the images taken by Ashwini certainly have a prominent > calyx, small flowers in relation to the calyx and *do not* fit number 3 > i.e. var. *delavayii)* *Strange and remiss of the authors to include > flowers in the line drawings of M.surculosus and not for M.pumilus which > makes it difficult to judge flower/calyx size.* > > > *I remain somewhat uncertain/confused. One problem in interpreting FOI is > that the authors, no matter how botanically able, may only have seen > specimens from Chinese territory. The variation of species in NW may well > be different/not able, so one has to be cautious here.* > > *Anyhow, I have started to inspect Mazus more closely. The fine photos of > Ashwini (which show close-up the characteristics of the calyx) and others > plus line drawings in FOC are much more useful than low resolution images > of herbarium specimens. As always, "a picture paints a thousand words". > Putting into words plant variation is often difficult. Keys should always > be viewed with caution and not accepted without question.* > > The currently accepted name is noted - along with various nomenclatural > changes over time. Of course not all changes/revisions are accepted. > > *I* *approach plant identification as detective work. This is another > example and further evidence that we cannot rely solely upon Hooker's > 'Flora of British India', which is well out-of-date (though he and other > contributors did a remarkable job for the time). Every checklist and flora > (no matter how reliable they are) become* > *out-of-date as soon as they are published!* > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 13:37:50 UTC+1, JM Garg wrote: > > Forwarding again for Id confirmation or otherwise please. > Some earlier relevant feedback: > The genus Mazus is no longer in the Scrophulariaceae family but Phymaceae > which includes > > The Kew Herbarium image: http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/ > getImage.do?imageBarcode= K001117588 > <http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage.do?imageBarcode=K001117588> > > Photos: https://www.google.co.uk/ search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus% > 22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl > <https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl> > > There are two species of Mazus to consider. In 'Flora Simlensis' there is > also *M.rugosus* - > which Stewart and 'The Plant List' has this as *M.japonicus*. > > Flora Simlensis has *M.japonicus* as the common species at Shimla - he > distinguishes > it by the lack of runners and calyx lobed half-way down cf. shortly > toothed in *M.surculosus*. > > For *M.japonicus* see: > https://www.google.co.uk/ search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus% > 22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl > <https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl> > > *Your images show runners. I don't think that Flora Simlensis calyx > characteristic holds true,* > *so M.surculosus does seem the most likely.* > > I have visited Manali several times. In the mid-1980s I led botanical > tours to Lahoul, with Manali as the > base, recording *Mazus surculosus* in the Deodar forest there but did not > consider other species at the time. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Chadwell > > > Pl. also check comparative images & keys at Mazus > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus> > > *Mazus* *japonicus* (Thunb.) Kuntze is now a synonym > <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about/#synonym> of *Mazus pumilus *(Burm.f.) > Steenis <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2507398> > This specimen appears to be quite interesting.- from me > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Ashwini Bhatia* <[email protected]> > Date: 25 September 2016 at 14:50 > Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:252074] Mazus surculosus ABJUL01/12 > To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups. com> > Cc: Ushadi Micromini <[email protected]> > > > Found a white *Mazus* on my walk today. Is it normal? To me it looks like *M. > surculosus* only but I could be wrong. Please advise. > > Thanks. > Ashwini > > > > > > <_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_ 7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_ > 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_ > 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_ 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_ 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_ > 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_ 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7489_ 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7482_ > 07Oct2016.jpg> > > -- > 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 indiantreepix+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/indiantreepix > <https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > > > -- > With regards, > J.M.Garg > 'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna' > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmgarg1> > Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/award-for-efloraofindia>. > For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, > please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indiantreepix> (largest in the > world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia > website <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/> (with a species > database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images). > The whole world uses my Image Resource > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:J.M.Garg> of more than a > thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. > (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as > per Creative Commons license attached with each image. > Also author of 'A Photoguide to the Birds of Kolkata & Common Birds of > India'. > > > > -- > With regards, > J.M.Garg > > 'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna' > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmgarg1> > > Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia > <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/award-for-efloraofindia>. > > For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, > please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indiantreepix> (largest in the > world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia > website <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/> (with a species > database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images). > > The whole world uses my Image Resource > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:J.M.Garg> of more than a > thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. > (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as > per Creative Commons license attached with each image. > > Also author of 'A Photoguide to the Birds of Kolkata & Common Birds of > India'. > -- 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 view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/fda045fb-1ae0-45d1-83fd-0d47bba32e8cn%40googlegroups.com.
