Ritesh Ji, I agree fully, it is not *Persicaria minor* (Huds.) Opiz. I agree that clear pictures of ochrea and, if possible, nuts are very important to ID *Persicaria*. But, "glands in perianth" is surely troublesome to me!
Thank you very much for the ID. Regards, surajit On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Ritesh Kumar Choudhary < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Surajit ji, > > Not P. minor! > > Probably your plant is Persicaria mitis (Shrank) Holub but can be > confirmed only after the careful examination of the plant/specimen. Let me > inform you that P. minor, P. mitis and P. hydropiper are very close > species, known to hybridize among each other and often misidentified. Even > the intermediate forms have also been reported (Parnell, 1988). P. minor > are supposed to have an erect spike whether the other two having nodding > ones (a character clearly visible in your photographs). Please also be > noted that the ochrea and nut characters are very important to identify the > Polygonum (s.l.) sps. which I would like to see in your next post. Please > remember that the identity of another Persicaria from Hooghley is still > pending because of the unavailability of mature nuts. However, the most > important difference between the above-mentioned three species is probably > the number of perianth glands which are ca.12 in P. mitis, Nil (0) in P. > minor and ca.83 in P. hydropiper. Besides, there are minor variations in > nut character and ochrea tooth lengths. > > Hope I am not putting you in more trouble. :-) > > Would like to hear from our experts too. > > Regards, > Ritesh. > > -- > > > > --
