Thank you very much Gurcharan ji for this clarity and analysis of confusing identities. >From the references I read and use, I find kutaja is *Holarrhena pubescens*Wall. ex G. Don (earlier literature quote *Holarrhena antidysenterica* Wall. Ex A. DC.). All other plants related to qualities of kutaja have some descriptors prefixed - like sweta-kutaja, stri-kutaja, pun-kutaja &c. Many thanks once again. Regards. Dinesh
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]>wrote: > The plants are very distinct, no one ever confuses them. One without > corona now correctly known as Holarrhena pubescens, commonly known as > Indrajao, feverpod and perhaps the real Kutaja of Ayurveda. > The other is the Wrightia antidysenterica, the coral swirl popularly > sold in nurseries under the name arcticsnow, Snowflake. A plant with > distinct corona, petals distinctly obovate, also known as Meethi indrajao. > Let us also bring in the related species Wrightia tinctoria with smaller > flowers, linear petals, also known as sweet indrajao > > To resolve this confusion let us go to the original descriptions in > Flora of British India and synonyms. The first plant is described as named > by Wallich and subsequently A. deCandolle, and hence citation Wall. ex DC. > in recent publications. Wrightia antidysenterica Grah cited as synonym. FBI > is not sure about synonymy of Chonemorpha antidysenterica G. Don. > Wrightia tinctoria is a distinct species and should not come in > confusion except for names indrajao and kutaja sometimes applied. > The third crucial plant is one described as Wrightia zeylonica (L.) R.Br. > with Nerium antidysentericum L. and Nerium zeylanicum L. > At the time Flora of British India, synonyms were cited but basionym > author was not included in the accepted name. When this practice started > Chonemorpha G. Don remained unknown and combination came to be known as > Holarrhena antidysenterica (L.) Wall. ex A. DC., many not bothering to know > where this L. came from, even after recently it has been understood that > correct name for this plant been understood as H. pubescens. Pl. see > citations below: > http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=5&taxon_id=115580 > http://database.prota.org/PROTAhtml/Holarrhena%20pubescens_En.htm > http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/tro-1800031 > The second website, though a very reputed one, but puts first black and > white illustration correctly but coloured photograph shows Wrightia > antidydenterica. The Plant List worst confused, even putting H. pubscens as > unresolved name. The correct synonymy can be seen at: > http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?102211 > http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=210000702 > > The second plant very distinct though remained in confusion because people > remembered L., but forgot where it came from till it was finally known that > Wrightia zeylanica (L.) R. Br. be correctly known as Wrightia > antidysenterica (L.) R. Br., and it is based on Nerium antidysentericum. > http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?451290 > > The unfortunate thing being that people remembered antidysenterica > but never bothered to know where it came from, and got tagged wrongly to > Holarrhena antidydenterica (L.) Wall. ex A. DC., instead of correct H. > anitdysenterica (G. Don) Wall. ex A.DC. > as synonym for H. pubescens. Perhaps also important to mention that > earliest name for this species was given by Roth in 1821 as Echites > antidysenterica 1821 as against Chonemorpha antidysenteria G Don, 1838, but > Roth's name can't be taken as basionym (Roth can't go in parenthesis) as it > is a a later homonym of Echites antidysenterica (L.) Roxb. ex Fleming. > > > > > > > -- > 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://www.gurcharanfamily.com/ > http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ > > -- > > > > --
