Further to my comments about the difficulties of identifying Senecio chrysanthemoides and related
species, I attach an image of what I understand to be this species taken for me in Ladakh as a slide
in the late 1980s/early 1990s, which has been scanned in.
This was one of the first pressed specimens collected by my team during the 1980 University of Southampton
Ladakh Expedition - gathered in triplicate, with a set deposited in the herbarium of the University of Kashmir.
This was at 3300m, Panichar, Suru Valley on a grassy verge beside irrigation stream and a barley field in moist
loam amongst Trifolium, grasses, Geranium himalayense with bright yellow ray florets, disc florets brown.
Stewart recorded S.chrysanthemoides as common, very variable with the forms NEEDING TO BE STUDIED
in cultivation and chromosome counts should be made. Recorded from Kashmir & Ladakh @ 1700-4000m.
Stewart recognised var. analogus and var. sisymbriiformis - saying this was common on high pastures in Kashmir
as it is avoided by grazing animals.
Flowers of the Himalaya state that S.chrysanthemoides is found in shrubberies and open slopes, common & often
gregarious @ 2400-4000m from Pakistan to SW China.
Flora of Lahaul-Spiti does not record S.chrysanthemoides but has S.laetus with var. laetus common on moist slopes
and along glacial streams at Khoksar. Also var. sisymbriiformis (DC.) Aswal comb.nov. (syn. Senecio chrysanthemoides
var. sisymbriiformis and obviously a mistake but rather glaring to be printed, SISYMBRIUM sisymbriiformis) which the
authors say is common on moist slopes and along streams at Kirting.
Collet in 'Flora Simlensis' found S.chrysanthemoides common at Shimla and Mahasu.
Himalayan Plants Illustrated has a photo of S.laetus Edgew. with S.chrysanthemoides DC. as a synonym.
BUT Dickore & Klimes do NOT list S.chrysanthemoides from Ladakh. although the species remains an ACCEPTED name - at least
in 'The Plant List'. Nor do they list S.laetus.
So which of the species listed by them was previously known as S.chrysanthemoides - after all the specimens from the 1980
expedition were named at Kew and thus we can assume was correctly identified and in line with the thinking at that time - albeit
some 37 years ago.
They list S.dubitabilis, which if the illustrations and specimen which can be accessed through 'The Plant List' are correct, this cannot be confused
with what used to be S.chrysanthemoides and may be what Stewart knew as S.desfontanei (common in dry areas from the plains to
3000m in Ladakh).
I CANNOT find any meaningful information about Senecio korschinskyi. which Dickore & Klimes do list but have just
spotted Senecio ladakhensis Chowdhery, Uniyal, Mathur & Rao. This species was published in the Indian Journal of Forestry (
13[4] 366-67 in 1990). If any members have ready access to this would they share the information with us particularly how it is . I am particularly interested
in which species of Senecio this NEW species might have been mistaken for in the past?
Strange that it was published back in 1990 yet Dickore & Klimes did not include it in their check-list of Ladakh plants in 2005.
This is the first I have heard of S.ladakhensis. Just goes to show that unless one works at an International Institution, which has copies
of such publications as The Indian Journal of Forestry, such NEW species are easily missed - for decades! And unless the species is covered
elsewhere, is virtually UNKNOWN...... This species may not be similar to S.chrysanthemoides.
Yes, it appears (with a VAST number of other species) in the List of Senecio species but that appears to be it. But it is 2017, some 27 years AFTER publication that I have come across this name. There appear to be no pressed specimens of S.ladakhensis at Kew or Edinburgh. SURELY, it makes sense for those in a senior position in Indian botany to ensure reference specimens of NEWLY described species in India are sent to the major herbaria interested in Indian flora. Has this been happening? Kew and Edinburgh have a tradition of interest in Himalayan Flora. IF NOT, it contributes to isolation. Surely, after NEW species have been published a team could be sent to gather more pressed specimens (and to access to abundance or not of the species in the district it was found) which could then be distributed abroad.... IF it has not been happening, then WHY NOT? Surely, the nearest University or Institution with a herbarium, to the location where the NEW species has been found, would wish to have reference specimens for that Institution, so could undertake the collection of fresh specimens. All this makes sense to me - any such collections/surveys could readily be combined with other survey work. AFTER all, GREAT significance seems to be attached to the 'discovery' of 'NEW' species.... But IF the world knows nothing about such species.....
In this day age (not the case back in 1990) surely, some national organisation in India could publish images and descriptions of ALL new species recorded from India which THE WORLD could readily access for COMPARATIVE purposes? In the past, species DESCRIBED in writing only within journals or listed in floras - where it was impossible to check the reliability of identifications, caused problems of INTERNATIONAL validation, particularly if those publishing the species had NOT checked with specialists in the West PRIOR to publication.
Best Wishes,
Chris Chadwell
81 Parlaunt Road
SLOUGH
SL3 8BE
UK