Two persons, one from Delhi University and the other from IISC Bangalore had contacted me for initial identifications of their specimens for initiating molecular studies. Unfortunately none of them have published their findings yet. One person published a new species, P. palakondensis. The other person from Delhi shared me images from three localities of TN and AP and asked me to name them. I found that the supposed morphological differences between P. gardnerianus and P. narayanswamii are not standing good due to presence of intermediate plants (images). However, P. simplex stands separate for its much narrower and thinner leaves and presence of bisexual cymules, absent in the other two. Meanwhile Bouman et al. (2022) recognized these species as distinct under the genus Cathetus. They had not studied DNA samples of P. narayanswamii. In concusion, in my opinion, morphologically P. naraynswamii is same as P. gardnerianus but different from P. simplex. I hope molecular data and field observations will eventually clarify the situation. With regards, Tapas
On Sun, 18 Dec 2022, 15:48 J.M. Garg, <[email protected]> wrote: > Forwarding again for Id assistance please. > > Some earlier relevant feedback: > This is not at all P. rangachariarii. Just now I noticed that the male > sepals are 6. > The characters of the plant point to very close alliance to Phyllanthus > clarkei in almost all characters. But I have some doubts because P. clarkei > in not known from peninsular India so far and the leaves here are stiffly > coriaceous. The glands in male flowers appear to be 6 instead of 3. > So, please study your plant very carefully once again and compare with P. > clarkei (now called Cathetus clarkei). > With regards, > > Tapas > > Even closer to P. gardnerianus but leaves sessile and thickly coriaceous.- > from Tapas ji > Thanks for pointing the mistake in id. You are absolutely correct it can't > be *Phyllanthus rangachariarii* owing to the characters you mentioned > i.e. 6 perianth and glands in male flowers instead of 4 in > *P. rangachariarii*). Additionally my plant is much smaller is height not > taller than 2 feets while *P. rangachariarii* is a much bigger shrub upto > 2 metre tall. > I also checked type material images available on BSI virtual herbarium, > confirming the same. > > https://ivh.bsi.gov.in/phanerogams/en?search_bar=Phyllanthus+rangachariarii&selection=Scientific_Name > With best regards > > Ashutosh Sharma > This must be *Phyllanthus narayanswamii* Gamble > Under shrub upto 2 metre tall. Leaves alternative,sessile, elliptic > coriaceous with thickened recurved margins. Perianth lobes 6 with 6 small > glands in male flowers. Fruit capsule globose with verrucose glands. All > these characters are matching with *Phyllanthus narayanswamii *Gamble > So our plant is *Phyllanthus narayanswamii* Gamble, which is already > reported from the Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve where I have clicked this > plant. > Tapas sir I hope the identity is correct now! > With best regards > > Ashutosh Sharma > Syn. of *Phyllanthus virgatus *G.Forst. ? ? Looks different from images > at > http://flora-peninsula-indica.ces.iisc.ac.in/herbsheet.php?id=3940&cat=7 ! > Now , *Cathetus virgatus* (G.Forst.) R.W.Bouman ?? > Please compare with *Phyllanthus macraei *Müll.Arg. . Now: *Cathetus > rheedei* (Wight) R.W.Bouman > > https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flowersofindia.net%2Fcatalog%2Fslides%2FMacrae%27s%2520Leaf-Flower.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flowersofindia.net%2Fcatalog%2Fslides%2FMacrae%2527s%2520Leaf-Flower.html&tbnid=y_CcsFWbZQlm0M&vet=12ahUKEwiMqv75s_P7AhVMhNgFHTQvB68QMygAegQIARBT..i&docid=ic-GNIA7lTEb8M&w=600&h=449&q=Phyllanthus%20macraei&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwiMqv75s_P7AhVMhNgFHTQvB68QMygAegQIARBT > Thank you. > > Saroj Kasaju > Someone recently united P. narayanswamii under P. virgatus but kept P. > gardnerianus distinct. Bouman et al. (2022) maintained all as distinct. I > am fully confused here. P. virgatus is a Pacific species while P. simplex > is Asian. Someone recently informed me that P. narayanswsmii is distinct > from P. gardnerianus by habit, habitat and DNA data. > My studies based on specimens and images indicate that narayanswamii and > gardnerianus should be merged but considering the confusions, I will not go > for any taxonomic changes. Let someone clarify these 3 species with field > data combined with DNA studies. > With regards, > > Tapas > Thanks for your valuable comments Tapas sir. I agree with your views and > meanwhile someone clarify these 3 species based on field data combined with > DNA/molecular studies, Garg ji in my opinion we should keep it as a > separate species on our website under page *Phyllanthus narayanswamii* > Gamble. > Please note than Verwijs *et al.* 2019 while synonymizing P. > *narayanswamii* under *P. virgatus* have also mentioned some difference > "The nervature of the leaves on the type of *P. narayanswamii* differs a > little bit from other specimens of* P. virgatus *in the prominent > nervature on the lower side of the leaf blade". Also it is notable that > when the publication of Verwijs *et al. *came in October 2019, at around > same time (just two months before in August) came another publication in > Phytotaxa entitled "Taxonomic and habitat update to *Phyllanthus > narayanswamii *(Phyllanthaceae): an endemic and endangered species from > southern India" which is not referred in the publication of Verwijs *et > al. *because as I mentioned earlier they got published round same time*.* So > before this publication only little data was available about *P. > narayanswamii* with no any images, so who knows if the publication on *P. > narayanswamii* taxonomic and habitat update would have came earlier, > Verwijs *et al. m*ay have retained the distinct species status of *P. > narayanswamii* as they retained the status of *P. gardnerianus* and *P. > tararae. *They have also mentioned in their paper abstract that "The > species complex around *Phyllanthus virgatus* remains taxonomically > difficult" and we are suffering from the same thing here... > Thanks and regards > > Ashutosh Sharma > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 at 12:35 > Subject: [efloraofindia:438048] Phyllanthus rangachariarii Murugan, Kabeer > & G.V.S.Murthy submission AS27 December 22 > To: indiantreepix <[email protected]> > > > Dear members, > > Here's a new addition to eFloraofIndia website. > > *Phyllanthus rangachariari*i Murugan, Kabeer & G.V.S.Murthy > Family - Phyllanthaceae > > This rare species is narrow endemic to Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve, > Tamil Nadu > > Photographed in Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu > In November 2022 > > With best regards > Ashutosh Sharma > > -- > 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/CADkfUKt28TAcaaX%3DCzaMzMYwZe6ugus_wLcj0DPvT71on6%2Brug%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CADkfUKt28TAcaaX%3DCzaMzMYwZe6ugus_wLcj0DPvT71on6%2Brug%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- > With regards, > J.M.Garg > -- 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/CAKFjQVSUkvS0t3VMi_Vw%3DF9Zgu5kiZ9k4BD0yb-up2C3BwAdpA%40mail.gmail.com.
