Please refer this link for contents in "the plant list" http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-2510469
Regards, Giby On 18 October 2011 11:52, Giby Kuriakose <[email protected]> wrote: > I think one has to check the "specimens" of both the "species" to conclude > this. > While I was searching for *Murraya*, I found that, *Murraya exotica* L. is > the accepted name for GRIN with *Murraya > paniculata*<http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?463825> > auct. nonn. (just put your pointer here to know what is auct. non.or > refer http://www.northernontarioflora.ca/definitions.cfm) as synonym > > http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?24702 > > and > > *Murraya paniculata* (L.) Jack. is the accepted name for "the plant list" > with M. exotica L. as the synonym. > > Why they come to a different conclusion? > > > Regards, > Giby > > > > > On 17 October 2011 21:49, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Vijaysankar ji >> I am very much aware of eFlora of China and treatment in It, but let us >> appreciate the fact that Flora of China is 1997 publication. I have >> following to support my conclusion: >> >> The Plant list...............................................2010 >> Wikipedia....................................................September, >> 2011 >> GRIN............................................................note on >> Sept, 2011 based on *Beattie, A.* 2011. pers. comm. via E–mail to L. >> Fowler on 15 Sept 2011. [re. *M. exotica* vs. *M. paniculata*]. >> >> Perhaps many more will follow. In my opinion two plants looking >> differently does not make much difference. What is important are differences >> are sufficient enough to merit distinction or merger. I believe in what >> taxonomic World thinks currently. >> >> >> -- >> 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 Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Vijayasankar >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> No HS ji, I am sure He won't neglect FoC's treatment. The editors of FoC >>> also had the same opinion like ours, in both the cases Murraya and >>> Flacourtia. We know that they are (the spp.) different. That's why when >>> several Indian Floras treated them as synonyms, we could not agree. But >>> someone does come with solutions, and now we are comfortable. Its matter of >>> time. Thanks to the dynamic nature of plant systematics. Nothing is final! >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Vijayasankar Raman >>> National Center for Natural Products Research >>> University of Mississippi >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, H S <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Vijay ji for sharing this,, >>>> >>>> but even i know that Sirji will not agree with this.. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Vijayasankar <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> We all know that Flora of China (FoC) is one of the most trusted >>>>> efloras, and most of the time a ready reference for identifying our Indian >>>>> plants, too. >>>>> It treats *Murraya paniculata* and *M. exotica* as different species. >>>>> We knew this based on our field experience. >>>>> The differences, as per FoC are: [ >>>>> http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=121339] >>>>> >>>>> Leaflet blades mostly suborbicular to ovate to elliptic, 1.5-6 cm wide >>>>> * M. paniculata* >>>>> Leaflet blades elliptic-obovate or obovate, 0.5-3 cm >>>>> wide *M. exotica* >>>>> >>>>> These may appear to be variable characters if we refer only herbarium >>>>> specimens. >>>>> Some taxa for e.g. Flacourtia indica & F. romantchii, we know they are >>>>> different based on their differences in habit, ecology etc., but its hard >>>>> to >>>>> find strong characters to distinguish them convincingly. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Vijayasankar Raman >>>>> National Center for Natural Products Research >>>>> University of Mississippi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Gurcharan Singh >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Nothing can help one who does not want to see reason. Who can stop me >>>>>> if I insist on believing that whole taxonomic World is wrong. Let those >>>>>> who >>>>>> want to live in their World be so. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM, H S <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> If plant is different surely they will have some differences i >>>>>>> guess... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think every one will agree that M. paniculata present in the wild >>>>>>> as well as in cultivation whereas M. exotica or M. paniculata var. >>>>>>> exotica >>>>>>> or cv of M. paniculata whatever we say its commonly cultivated in the >>>>>>> garden >>>>>>> for the glossy laeves and beautiful flowers.. if its cv than who had >>>>>>> made >>>>>>> it???? no doubt they are different and in Maharashtra both can seen very >>>>>>> commonly,, those who eager to see the species can visit Amboli, >>>>>>> Mahabaleshwar, Mathera, Pune, Bhimashankar etc places to see M. >>>>>>> paniculata >>>>>>> and M. exotica in Nashik garden, Mumbai (Rani baug, Bombay trust garden, >>>>>>> Gorai, Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Plantation near pond,, etc etc..), >>>>>>> Kolhapur, Pune garden.. etc etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mahadeswara ji >>>>>>>> For that that matter all species which have been described on the >>>>>>>> basis of different holotypes would be different species, because they >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> have some differences. If we have that concept there would be no >>>>>>>> heterotypic >>>>>>>> synonyms and we will have more than 5 lac species of angiosperms on >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> Earth, whereas most authors agree on this number being below 3 lacs. >>>>>>>> As I >>>>>>>> have written earlier also Hortus Third (considered Bible for cultivated >>>>>>>> plants), The Plant List, now even GRIN, and numerous other publications >>>>>>>> treat them as synonyms, and we would be doing little service to ignore >>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Mahadeswara >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with Vijayasankar ji and H.S.ji. Both are different >>>>>>>>> species. Both these species are available in IIT Madras Campus >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> C L R I Campus, Adyar Chennai. While the M. paniculata is wild, >>>>>>>>> M.exotica is cultivated. In photograph both the plants look like. >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I am not in Chennai now. I had the photographs of >>>>>>>>> both. I will try to dig out from the archives in due course and >>>>>>>>> post >>>>>>>>> it to the group (depends on getting the photographs) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 6:40 am, Balkar Arya <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Dear All >>>>>>>>> > *Murraya paniculata* >>>>>>>>> > *Family Rutaceae >>>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>>> > *From Garden of PIET Campus Samalkha Panipat >>>>>>>>> > *-- >>>>>>>>> > Regards >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Dr Balkar Singh >>>>>>>>> > Head, Deptt. of Botany and Biotechnology >>>>>>>>> > Arya P G College, Panipat >>>>>>>>> > Haryana-132103 >>>>>>>>> > 09416262964 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (1).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 175KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (2).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 258KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (3).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 240KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (4).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 180KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (5).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 214KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (6).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 186KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Murraya paniculata (7).JPG >>>>>>>>> > 201KViewDownload >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> - H.S. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere >>>>>>> heart of stone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> - H.S. >>>> >>>> A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart >>>> of stone >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > GIBY KURIAKOSE PhD > Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), > Royal Enclave, > Jakkur Post, Srirampura > Bangalore- 560064 > India > Phone - +91 9448714856 (Mobile) > visit my pictures @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/giby > -- GIBY KURIAKOSE PhD Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Jakkur Post, Srirampura Bangalore- 560064 India Phone - +91 9448714856 (Mobile) visit my pictures @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/giby
