Great analysis Pankaj! But i think the id of this plant is resolved by Dr.Almeida & Dr. Gurcharan as M. kauki, so the thread can be closed. Description for M. kauki in FBI matches well with the specimen. I think, your doubt about retuse/emarginate leaf apex is due to Wallich's Type specimen, which is actually M. hexandra as also we can see the det in the bottom as well as top right corners of the sheet. M. hexandra is a common coastal/riparian element in southern part of India and it is completely different from the specimen posted here. Cooke in FPB has noted that the fruits are known as Adam's Apple and are eaten in Goa, from the same place where Renee ji has seen this plant.
Regards Vijayasankar On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]>wrote: > This is getting interesting......AND CONFUSING.....being a botanist I > will always prefer to look into type specimens and protologues. > > Firstly the link provided by Yazdy sir are of general pics and not for > any authentic site on internet. Even if they are, the leaves there are > more of lanceolate with acute apex. > > Secondly, I found description on page 549 (may be by mistake you wrote > 449) of volume 3 in Flora of British India. There Hooker clearly says > that the Plant on upper hand Wallich 4149 E, and there is a note on > the sheet which bears original signatures of Wallich as well as Sir J > D Hooker. He has clearly demarkated all the plants on that particular > sheet. > > Then I looked into Plants of Coromandel as it has been mentioned for > Manilkara hexandra in Fl. Brit. India by Hook.f. and found following > sketch. Very interestingly, the sketch depicts bilobed apex of the > leaf for Manilkara hexandra. > > So I tried to check for the Type of Manilkara hexandra which is > Wallich 4148 which I again found to be a composite herbarium with > multiple plants. > > Turning back to Species Plantarum where the original protologue (type > description) of taxa exists, (as Mimosups kauki L. Sp. Pl. 1: 349, > 1753), Linne has differentiated the two taxa desribed by him by the > leafs. > > Mimosups elengi - foliis alternis remotis [which means: leaves > alternate and remotely placed) > Mimosups kauki - foliis confertis [leaves dense] > > > If we look at the density of leaves and the length of the petiole > according to Carl Linnaeus and Sir J D Hooker Dr. Gurcharan, then I > dont think, I will call this as dense rather they look same as > Mimusops elengi as they are clearly distant from each other > > At the same time if we look at the leaf apex then this cant be M. > kauki atleast. I will prefer to call these pics as unresolved. > > Even Hooker writes: > The great difficulty that has been raised over Manilkara kauki , > Linn., has been due to two causes: 1. Wallich identified his Amherst > plant, the true M. kauki with Roxburgh's Deccan M. hexandra; 2. > botanists, not looking to the fruit and perhaps not having it always > look at, have betaken themselves to the degree of notching of the > staminodes for diagnostic characters. > > Regards > Pankaj > > -- > *********************************************** > "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" > > > Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) > Research Associate > Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project > Department of Habitat Ecology > Wildlife Institute of India > Post Box # 18 > Dehradun - 248001, India >
