Thread broken; See original thread = 'https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix/ browse_thread/thread/93913c9f37f4cd31?hl=en'
On Nov 2, 8:59 am, Mayur Nandikar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Tropicoshttp://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.......:) > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:49 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 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 » > > -- > Mr. Mayur D. Nandikar, > Research Student, > Department of Botany, > Shivaji University, > Kolhapur. > 07507013607
