Thank You Muyur ji for the details though I cannot see your post here in this thread; For the benefit of group-members on this thread and all others I am pasting the reply below:
'Samir ji, There are few websites, or online libraries for archives of old journals and books (for Protologue's) might be you aware with this. Even you can search plant name from Tropicos http://www.tropicos.org/ they will provide all the details of taxa furthermore you can access the original protologue from this site. Following are few libraries... Biblioteca Digital <http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/index.php> Biodiversity Heritage Library<http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ About.aspx> Botanicus <http://www.botanicus.org/browse> **BPH <http://fmhibd.library.cmu.edu/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=BPH_Online&- loadframes> **e-journals <http://www.e-journals.org/botany/> Gallica <http://gallica.bnf.fr/> Guide to the plant species descriptions published in seed lists from Botanic Gardens for the period 1800 - 1900<http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl/seedlists/home.htm> Kurt Stüber's Online Library <http://www.zum.de/stueber/> Linnaean Dissertations <http://128.2.21.109/fmi/xsl/LinnDiss/home.xsl> Martius's Flora Brasiliensis <http://florabrasiliensis.cria.org.br/ index> Philological Museum<http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/bibliography/ index.htm> Thank you.......:) - Show quoted text - -- Mr. Mayur D. Nandikar, Research Student, Department of Botany, Shivaji University, Kolhapur. 07507013607 ' On Nov 1, 7:19 pm, Samir Mehta <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 aplant > > > published for the first time. It may be a book or a paper in a journal. > > > The > > > (herbarium) specimen of the newly describedplantis 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 correctplantand > > > 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 doubtfulid. > > > 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 everyplant. > > > > 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 aplant, 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 eachplanthe/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 getplant. 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 theplantin 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 toid. > > >>>> >>> 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 theidbased on > > >>>> >>> expert suggestions. It is a collective effort that we are handling. > > >>>> >>> Further, district flora will give us a clearer picture (provided > > >>>> that the > > >>>> >>>idand 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 aplant, 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 wrongIDin 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 theID. 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 theplant. 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 whoseidis misleading referring > > >>>> this > > >>>> >>>> > thread > > >>>> >>>> > and few other relevant online references. > > > >>>> >>>> > Thanks and Regards, > > >>>> >>>> > Giby. > > > >>>> >>>> > On 24 October 2011 18:56, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> > > ... > > read more »
