Gulcharan ji, the difference of morphological structure I was referring to relates to the difference in the width of the petals (much broader in the second plant).
Further, not having any formal / structured education in Botany beyond high school I am not sure what parameters botanists use in current times to call a particular variation a sub-species or even a different species. Regards, Samir On Jul 10, 9:37 pm, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Samir ji > A nice series of photographs. Why don't you list down the differences (other > than habit), if they look so different?. This will help in further > investigation. > > -- > Dr. Gurcharan Singh > Retired Associate Professor > SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 > Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. > Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Samir Mehta <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Fellow group-members, > > > The images in this post consist of a Petrea volubilis 'classical (first 2 > > images) from one plant and the rest of the images from another plant, the > > latter being a scandent shrub, 10-12 ft tall. > > > I was not sure whether the scandent shrub images were indeed of Petrea > > volubilis because they looked so different until I saw something similar in > > Top Tropicals labeled Petrea arborea. A quick check with the ars-grin > > database confirmed the taxon listed as a synonym of P. volubilis. > > > I'm a trifle surprised that the variation has not been listed as a > > sub-species for the morphological (in structure) difference (subject to my > > identification being correct) is quite evident and significant. > > > Regards, > > > Samir Mehta
