Thank You Mayur ji, appreciate it. Apologize for missing to reply to this e-mail of yours earlier.
Regards, Samir On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Mayur Nandikar <mayurnandi...@gmail.com>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 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.......:) > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Samir Mehta <samirmeht...@gmail.com>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 <manudevkmadha...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Thanks vijayji.. >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Vijayasankar <vijay.botan...@gmail.com >> >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 <drsmpha...@gmail.com >> >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 < >> > >> manudevkmadha...@gmail.com> 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 <yazdypa...@gmail.com >> >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 >> > >>>> <manudevkmadha...@gmail.com> 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 < >> singh...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> 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 < >> > >>>> giby.kuriak...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> >> 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 < >> > >>>> manudevkmadha...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> >>> 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 <giby.kuriak...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> 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 < >> dinesh.va...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> 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 < >> presa...@gmail.com> >> > >>>> 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 > >
