Euphorbia nana (Euphorbiaceae)

[Tapas Chakrabarty]

Ex situ conservation at Botanical Survey of India, Pune.

Regards,

Tapas.

[Ushadi Micromini]

if it is what i think it   is , it should form a beautiful caudex.
does it//did  it

usha di

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "efloraofindia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indiantreepi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to indian...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Usha di
===========

[D.S Rawat]

Thanks to the people conserving it.
The earlier name was Euphorbia panchganiensis Blatt. & Mc Cann synonymysed with it now.
Mentioned in Red Data Book of Indian Plants Vol-3:122-123 as rare.
Earlier known from Maharashtra as E.panchganiensis but now known from Western Himalaya too.
Thanks for showing this rare species Sir!
I never saw it in Uttarakhand during last two and a half decade.

DSRawat Pantnagar

[Ushadi Micromini]

Dr Rawt

I knew it as a Euphorbia panchganiensis

so i had googled it middle of the nite

and was surprised to see name nana

what makes people change an obviously indian origin name to  a nondescript name like nana

this is what i dont understand

usha di

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "efloraofindia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indiantreepi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to indian...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Usha di
===========

[D.S Rawat]

Usha Di

It is restoration of correct name rather than intentional name changing.

This plant was first described by Royle in 1836. Later Blatter and Mc Cann also described the same plant (obviously collected from Maharashtra) in 1931 without knowing that it is already described.

ICN (International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants) simply says that earliest legitimate name will only be the correct name so that due credit is given to the author describing the species first.

The case remained unnoticed but now sorted out; credit now to Royle who introduced this plant to science first..

The epithet "nana" indicate small nature of plant.

Botanists (particularly Taxonomists) have a large set of rules (ICN) for naming plants and they follow it. Some of them keep searching history of names and correcting them throughout their research career.

Regards.

DSRawat Pantnagar

 

Dr D.S.Rawat

Department of Biological Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology Pantnagar-263 145 Uttarakhand, INDIA

[Tapas Chakrabarty]

Thank you Dr. Rawat for explanation.

Regards,

TC.

[Ushadi Micromini]

thank you Dr  Rawat

that explains the frequent name changes

i have seen botanists at some renowned bot gs some of whom did only do just that spend their office time in tracking the order of discoveries

drove me bonkers, they could have gone on to learn the newer fields  of study and analysis...

but it looked like inertia at worst

or obsession at best

or fear of newer avenues to do investigation with.. such as molecular biology

ah,
se la vie

usha di

--

Usha di
===========

[Tapas Chakrabarty]

Sometimes back a senior scientist commented in a reputed Indian journal that he feels pity for the taxonomists who keep on digging and searching old literature in search of correct name of a plant which is a wastage of time!

[D.S Rawat]

Because of such thoughts and comments we are lagging far behind in this field.

DSRawat Pantnagar

Dr D.S.Rawat

Department of Biological Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology Pantnagar-263 145 Uttarakhand, INDIA