Apologies for entering the thread late but can someone tell us amateurs the popular websites where these Protologue's can be accessed, especially for our plants?
Thanks & Regards, Samir Mehta On Nov 1, 6:57 pm, manudev madhavan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks vijayji.. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Vijayasankar <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interesting discussion, Manudev ji and Giby. > > > Satish ji, let me try to answer your query. > > > In simple terms, Protologue is the original description of a plant > > published for the first time. It may be a book or a paper in a journal. The > > (herbarium) specimen of the newly described plant is the 'Type specimen', > > with which the botanical name is permanently attached. > > > It is customary to refer and quote the protologue and Type, when we write > > a taxonomic article, espl. to be sure that we work on the correct plant and > > correct name. This is what being stressed by Manudev ji here. > > > I know, many botanists in the group spend time to refer digital > > protologues and scanned herbarium images from various sources, to identify > > some of the not-so-common plants that are posted here. This may not be > > necessary for all plants, but it is essential to sort out doubtful id. > > Thanks to the IT, we are now able to at least see these treasures > > digitally, because, Type specimens of many of the Indian plants are not > > available in India, and we can not travel to herbaria for every plant. > > > Pankaj has posted protologues and Types of several orchids in this forum. > > > Regards > > > Vijayasankar Raman > > National Center for Natural Products Research > > University of Mississippi > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Satish Phadke <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> Manudev ji > >> Can you describe in short what is meant by Protologue in botanical > >> terms?(and may be other related terms) > > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:24 PM, manudev madhavan < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Thank you all... > > >>> My guide use to tell the necessity of the protologues to reach > >>> conclusions in the circumscription of a species.And i always try to do the > >>> same when I get a plant, atleast for genus *Arisaema*. We knew that > >>> during the preparation of a flora, one have to process thousands of > >>> plants, > >>> and has to make lot of data sheets of each plant he/she come across. I am > >>> not sure how sincerely one can finish all these things in a stipulated > >>> time. Unfortunately I myself have seen few workers who just "cut & copy" > >>> some preceding floras available, even "Flora of British India & Flora of > >>> Presidency of Madras". It does not mean that "all" the floras are made > >>> like > >>> that. > > >>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Yazdy Palia <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>>> No way brother, you have not written anything to hurt anyone. Such > >>>> suggestions must keep coming. Incidentally, I learned something today, > >>>> having gone through your mail, I have learned what a protologue is. > >>>> For the integrity of the information on the site, I am with you. We > >>>> non botanists are enjoying the experience of sharing photographs, > >>>> learning from the knowledge of the experts. With regards to your > >>>> suggestions, I at least think the knowledgeable should decide. > >>>> Regards > >>>> Yazdy. > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:35 PM, manudev madhavan > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > Dear all, > >>>> > My intention was to point out the fact that there are few errors do > >>>> occur in > >>>> > floras and monographs and not to blame anyone..!! > >>>> > I know the limitations of our members (including me) identifying the > >>>> plants > >>>> > from few photographs.. > >>>> > In fact myself also start with some regional floras or district > >>>> floras when > >>>> > I get plant. I use to check the descriptions of the floras and the > >>>> original > >>>> > description if it is available with me. i know we may not be able to > >>>> check > >>>> > the protologue all the time. But If we had checked the character set > >>>> of the > >>>> > plants from the images available to us,with the protologues, we can > >>>> reduce > >>>> > the percentage of errors in eflora india. > >>>> > I apologize if my comments had hurt anyone.. > >>>> > with warm regards > >>>> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >> I also generally start with regional flora and then verify it with > >>>> other > >>>> >> resources. That helps in fixing it properly. > >>>> >> Perhaps many people think it obsolete, but Flora of British India has > >>>> >> great value. It is this Flora which has initiated the description of > >>>> >> numerous new species from India or redefining its status. > >>>> >> I don't know if all members know the two paragraph significance > >>>> of FBI. > >>>> >> The upper paragraph starts with accepted name and its full reference > >>>> and > >>>> >> diagnosis taken from original description, followed by synonyms. > >>>> >> The second paragraph is wholly Indian. It starts with > >>>> distribution and > >>>> >> then description based entirely on Indian specimens and special > >>>> comments > >>>> >> which helps to assess the level of affinities with first paragraph. > >>>> It is > >>>> >> these comments which helped segregating Indian Sambucus as S. > >>>> wightiana > >>>> >> distinct from S. ebulus and Hedera nepalensis as distinct from H. > >>>> helix, and > >>>> >> many more independent taxa. Even while merging Indian taxa with > >>>> European > >>>> >> ones, FBI gave minor or significant differences in second paragraph, > >>>> helping > >>>> >> greatly the subsequent Indian workers. > > >>>> >> -- > >>>> >> 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 31, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Giby Kuriakose < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>> >> wrote: > > >>>> >>> Dear Manudev, > >>>> >>> I agree with you that the identification would perfect when we do it > >>>> >>> based on protologue and monographs. > >>>> >>> By the way, It was my mistake that I ided the plant in this thread > >>>> >>> wrongly and it was not the mistake in any flora. I realized the > >>>> same when > >>>> >>> Prabhu pointed out. > >>>> >>> I apologized for the same. > >>>> >>> I do not think we have monographs for even 10% of genera in India. > >>>> >>> And I do not think that we can always go and check the protologues > >>>> and > >>>> >>> monographs especially when we get photographs to id. > >>>> >>> If at all it is necessary, the person who upload has to check and > >>>> get > >>>> >>> back because he handled the specimen. It is been happening here. > >>>> >>> Many of the members are cross checking the id based on > >>>> >>> expert suggestions. It is a collective effort that we are handling. > >>>> >>> Further, district flora will give us a clearer picture (provided > >>>> that the > >>>> >>> id and the information are correct) about the plants in that > >>>> region. That > >>>> >>> mostly reduces the burden of going through long keys (at least for > >>>> >>> new comers) wherein the key would be for a broader region (eg. > >>>> Gamble, > >>>> >>> Presidency of Madrass, covers almost the whole peninsular India and > >>>> some of > >>>> >>> the keys are too complicated to handle, especially for a layman or a > >>>> >>> newcomer). > >>>> >>> I suggest experts to write the concerned author and the publisher, > >>>> of > >>>> >>> whatever publication, pointing out the mistakes. I hope you have > >>>> done the > >>>> >>> same for what you found with Arisaema. > >>>> >>> I use to do so. > > >>>> >>> Regards, > >>>> >>> Giby > > >>>> >>> On 31 October 2011 12:18, manudev madhavan < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>> >>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>> Dear all, > > >>>> >>>> A humble suggestion from my side.. > >>>> >>>> Whenever we make a comment on the identity of a plant, I request to > >>>> >>>> you to check the characters of the plants with the protologue. I > >>>> have > >>>> >>>> seen many floras give wrong identifications and misleading > >>>> >>>> descriptions. Can you imagine a a wrong identification even in a > >>>> >>>> monograph?? Myself has encountered such a situation recently in an > >>>> >>>> Arisaema revision. Such mistakes can carry forward easily. Almost > >>>> all > >>>> >>>> the Kerala floras have followed this wrong ID in their treatment of > >>>> >>>> the genus. I agree many times we may not able to check the > >>>> protologues > >>>> >>>> but we can select most reliable works. > >>>> >>>> I would suggest you people to refer monographs or family revisions > >>>> >>>> rather than district floras for the confirmation of the ID. Since > >>>> the > >>>> >>>> mistakes are even found in such monographs and revisions, it would > >>>> be > >>>> >>>> much better if it is the original description or type illustration > >>>> >>>> of the plant. I think accessing a protologue is not a himalayan in > >>>> >>>> this era > > >>>> >>>> with warm regards > > >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 9:32 am, Giby Kuriakose <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > I have written to few people whose id is misleading referring > >>>> this > >>>> >>>> > thread > >>>> >>>> > and few other relevant online references. > > >>>> >>>> > Thanks and Regards, > >>>> >>>> > Giby. > > >>>> >>>> > On 24 October 2011 18:56, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>> > > Yes Prejith ji ... I am one of the contributors in misleading > >>>> !! > >>>> >>>> > > Some of pictures in my photostream need to be rectified. > >>>> >>>> > > Will revisit them shortly. > > >>>> >>>> > > Giby ji was kind enough to at least two instances. > > >>>> >>>> > > Regards. > >>>> >>>> > > Dinesh > > >>>> >>>> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM, PreSam <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>> > >> Thanks to everybody for the identification. A lot of pictures > >>>> of > >>>> >>>> > >> Murdannia pauciflora on the internet are misleading. > > >>>> >>>> > >> Regards, > > ... > > read more »
