Thank you Gurucharanji for explaining, and Balkar ji for the paper... may be it will make sense to me now... lets see...
Usha di ==== On Sep 12, 4:01 pm, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Let us understand some basics > Although the name of Hibiscus vitifolius is clearly mentioned in the paper, > it does not fulfill the basic requirement (for publications after 1955 as > informed by Tanay). The basionym on which the combination is based should be > written immediately after the combination suggested, which the authors have > not done. Pl. see the IPNI record: > > http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=991056-1 > > Please note another interesting thing (although it should not disqualify > the combination). While making the combination authors should have changed > vitifolius to vitifolia, which unfortunately they have not done. > > Even if we think that combination is valid, let us understand that this > combination was made in 1996, and let us see how recent publications treat > this taxon: > > http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/details.php?langue=an&id... > status 2009 > > http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=HIVI > based on GRIN status 9/5/2011 > > http://www.jstor.org/pss/4120636 > Kew Bull., 2003 > > http://www.eol.org/pages/584775/names > EOL Annual Checklist 2010 > > http://www.mozambiqueflora.com/speciesdata/species.php?species_id=139680 > 4/7/2011 > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/photosofsrilanka/4348195473/ > Jan 2010 > > http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do? > D7=0&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&N4=G1036|SIGMA&N25=0&QS=ON&F=SPEC<http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?D7=0&N5=SEARCH_C...> > 2011 > > It would be interesting to know any recent publication which recognises > Kosteletzkya vitifolia as accepted name. > > Interesting Hibiscus vitifolius is an African plant described in most > African and South American Floras. It is also true that genus Kosteletzkya > is recognised as disctinct. The million dollar question is if Kosteletzkya > vitifolia combination published in BNHS is not valid and species really > belongs to this genus Kostelzkya, why no author has published a valid > combination (or name) for this so common a plant, which many had published > as Fioria vitifolia (now merged back into Hibiscus). > > My simple conclusion is that perhaps Almeida and Patil were wrong in > assigning Hibiscus vitifolia L. to genus Kostelzkya. The genus is separated > from Hibiscus in having single ovule (and seed) in each locule, whereas > Hibiscus vitifolius has 2-4 per locule as a rule. I think here lies the > answer. This leaves the validity of combination made by Almeida and Patil > without much meaning. > > -- > 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 Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM, H S <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Balkar ji for uploading the paper.... > > Hope atleast some member should understand the position of H. vitifolia > > > for people who think that i am against The Plant List... pls note that, I > > never said dont follow The plant List... i said dont follow blindly, no > > doubt its a latest publication on Plant taxonomy of the World and its the > > best for the Nomenclature.. even i check the names on the site, but even i > > check them in literature to confirm it,,, but what i found is there are some > > mistakes in Indian plant,, or some species are not included which are > > published at state level.... > > > I do not know that The Plant List and the Missouri Botanical Garden had > > any Indian taxonomist consultant... > > > except few, I think the group is lacking in good Indian plant taxonomist, , > > who are there in the country but unfortunately not the Group for > > discussion... > > > regards, > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Balkar Arya <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Dear all here is Paper > >> I have access to vol 1 to 100 of J of Bombay Natural History society. > >> Pls feel free to ask any paper. I may take time top get them converted in > >> PDF format that the problem > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:21 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Dear Dr. Sngh... > > >>> I think you are right.. futile to react... but it needs to get on the > >>> permanent record about How useful the plant list is and so that our > >>> members > >>> all refer to it or at least not object to it... > >>> I think its a wonderful resource... > > >>> Re: futile to react.... even in my medical college class we had some > >>> students who got degrees but did not get any learning... in Gujarati its > >>> called 'Bhanya pana ganya nahi... ie got certificates but did not learn to > >>> deal in life... or some such thing... > > >>> se la vi... > > >>> I realize how difficult the taxonomy task is... before the human > >>> tumors/cancers well well defined and classified in the 50s and 60s ... it > >>> must have been a very difficult job for the doctors who were treating > >>> them... > > >>> Also, the need to standardize plant names was driven home when I started > >>> studying herbal medicine and then Ayurvedic medicine where there are sooo > >>> many vernacular names and sooo many conflicting names that its not > >>> funny... > > >>> cheers is right.... > > >>> Goodnite.. > >>> Usha di > > >>> ======= > > >>> On , Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > UshadiFor people like us who were struggling hard to prepare lists of > >>> accepted names for decades now, the importance of GRIN, The Plant List and > >>> Sorting Plant Names is so dear. After the two volumes of Index Kewensis > >>> 1893 > >>> or so in which there were lists of accepted names and synonyms, we used to > >>> always hunt for accepted names as subsequent supplements every 5 years no > >>> distinction of of accepted names were available and we used to rely on > >>> regular upldates by Raizada, Rao, and some me for knowing recent name > >>> changes. It was only after nearly 100 years that we had GRIN as source of > >>> finding correct names (of mainly American Plants) and now that the Plant > >>> List is available (2010 onwards), listing all published names and recent > >>> accepted names, what more does the Botanical community want. Only those > >>> who > >>> have been doing hardcore research know the importance of such > >>> publications, > >>> and that too online. Agreed there are some issues with unresolved names, > >>> duplicity of names, but these constitute not more than 5-10 percent of > >>> names. I have been writting to the Managers of the List about errors and > >>> hope these would be solved soon, but to just reject the database, is > >>> something no serious researcher can think of. > > >>> > All of us can have our opinions on some things, but in the matter > >>> of names in our database, we can only rely on what is the latest by > >>> consensus. > > >>> > After reading this concluding statement, I think it is futile to react. > > >>> > "no problem sirji... i do not have any problem you calling it > >>> Hibiscus vitifolia... > > >>> > but i willl follow what i feel is correct.." > > >>> > We will continue to do whatever is good for the welfare of the group. > > >>> > Cheers Usha di > > >>> > . > >>> > -- > >>> > 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: 9810359089 > >>> >http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ > >>> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Ushadi micromini > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > NO NO NO, > > >>> > we will not stop this thread... > > >>> > the issues are not resolved... > > >>> > First issue is "BLINDLY FOLLOWING THE PLANT LIST" > > >>> > I looked in the history of THE PLANT LIST yesterday (for a different > > >>> > matter) > > >>> > what I found has earned my respect... > > >>> > Its not a run by a flyby nite operation... nor is it a money grabbing > > >>> > operation... > > >>> > Its a KEW and Missouri Botanical Garden joint venture... both places > > >>> > are run by and staffed by > > >>> > very scientific .. very correct, very studious, and top of the line > > >>> > educated folks... both places... They even rate the names as accepted > > >>> > on basis of percentage acceptability, which I thought was very > > >>> > honest.... > > >>> > MOST OF US including you mr. HS will do well to start following the > > >>> > PLANT list as a basis.... > > >>> > then... BASIC RESEARCH HAS its place... > > >>> > let the professors of BOTANY and Taxonomy figure out and publish... > > >>> > SECOND ISSUE IS CAN I GET A PDF OF THIS PAPER: Kosteletzkya vitifolia > > >>> > (L.) M.R.Almeida & N.Patil J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.93: 111 1996 ... > > >>> > which is at the heart of this argument... cant find it on the net... > > >>> > Thanks Usha di > > >>> > ========== > > >>> > On Sep 9, 3:25 pm, H S [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > no problem sirji... i do not have any problem you calling it Hibiscus > > >>> > > vitifolia... > > >>> > > but i willl follow what i feel is correct.. > > >>> > > ok.. here we shall stop discussion about this post.. > > >>> > > regards,, > > >>> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Gurcharan Singh [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > Dear H S > > >>> > > > Please don't make comments like ......all the members are just > >>> blindly > > >>> > > > following the Plant list or other sites for identification of > >>> plants. > > ... > > read more »
