Dipkadi montanum

19 views
Skip to first unread message

satish phadke

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:26:24 PM9/26/08
to indiantreepix Indian, wildflowerindia
Dipkadi montanum
A Liliaceae family member seen amongst a lot of Strbilanthus bushes on Kas plateau.
Satish Phadke
Dipkadi montanum.jpg

sibda...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 1:42:12 PM9/26/08
to indiantreepix
Recently several photos appeared showing only flowers or the
inflorescens of the plants. Pl. try to include at least the leaves, if
the whole plant can not be accommodated
>  Dipkadi montanum.jpg
> 189KViewDownload

J.M. Garg

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 6:40:15 AM9/27/08
to sibda...@gmail.com, indiantreepix
Here is a link with some details with Ver. names for Dipcadi montanumhttp://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Dipcadi.html

For learning about our trees & plants, please visit/ join Google e-group (Indiantreepix) http://groups.google.co.in/group/indiantreepix?hl=en

Padmini Raghavan

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:27:33 PM9/29/08
to sibda...@gmail.com, indiantreepix
 I am afraid it is becoming a fashion to send photos which are marvels of composition and colour and which would make stunning wall hangings. However as this is not primarily a photography site ( with exposure and lens details etc) maybe it would be better to show the whole plant or tree followed by it's individual parts so that everyone is able to enrich their knowledge of flora. 
 I, for one, have had  the thrill of recognising many  previously unnamed plants and trees from the detailed views shown of the different parts of the plant or tree.
This is not to detract from the artistic value of the pictures shown but to hope that the content would be more suitable to this site.
 Padmini Raghavan.

 

satish phadke

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:51:21 PM9/29/08
to indiantreepix Indian, wildflowerindia
Thanks for suggestions from Sibdas and Padmini.
Certain herbs are very small esp. those observed on the Kas plateau. The weather conditions are often not very good for photography as it was raining throughout the day when I photographed this plant. Unfortunately I had to photograph the flower on the background of the seat cover of my car as you can observe here. These are annual plants, they live for 15 days or so and die after that to come up again next year. The leaves are often a pair or so and the only visible part is inflorescence which is necessary for identification.Though your views might be correct for most of the species it may not be possible for all plants and it is expected that one can reply to the post if he or she has any further information/link/further photographs showing some other parts of the plant and also comments if any.If not just enjoy whatever is available.I will certainly try to find if at all I get a chance to visit the place again.
Satish Phadke

Anand Kumar Bhatt

unread,
Sep 30, 2008, 2:49:33 AM9/30/08
to Padmini Raghavan, sibda...@gmail.com, indiantreepix
Padminiji. Your point is well taken. But the name of the site is 'indiantreepix'. Now pix can have only one meaning. I don't kow how you assume that it is not primarily a photography site (for trees, and its various parts). But yes, what you say is correct. The view of the whole tree as well would a better idea of the tree, and make it more identifiable to the members.
akbhatt

Adesh Shivkar

unread,
Sep 30, 2008, 4:53:03 AM9/30/08
to Anand Kumar Bhatt, Padmini Raghavan, indiantreepix
I think Padminiji has made very good suggestion but in an extremely harsh and sarcastic tone (marvels of composition,wall hangings et.al)............the comment on "not a primarily a photographic site" is also quite amusing.......

I for one got hooked to wildflowers ONLY after seeing some amazing images (artistic and well composed etc..etc..)and from the work in Indiatreepix...and I am extremely indebt to this group and the people who so enthusiastically and regularly keep this group alive.....I have gained immense knowledge and interest thro' this group.

There are certain restrictions for a photographer which Mr.Satish Phadke has nicely explained in one of the earlier mails.....Agreed that we should capture different parts (particularly of trees) when seeking IDs or otherwise.....but for many wild flowers (not all offcourse) , the flower images are sufficient to ID it......and I believe this forum is not just about Iding, but also sharing the visually appealing images of Indian flora.....that REALLY goes a long way to inculcate interest in flora among those who otherwise feel bored (and I know many of my friends who have good interested in flora through photography)....... there has to be an effort to bring out the beauty of flowers through the images and I am happy to see that this is happening here.....

Why should all the images be only about identifications? why not also about creating interest thro' good images ?

Secondly a photographer shares the specification of lens and camera and exposure details, so that people who want to take up or learn to take good photographs could definately learn from this...

Offcourse, I have started posting both types of images (A close-up as well as the whole plant) after Padminiji's suggestion sometime back......whereever possible....and will continue to do so...

But to sarcastically negate the wonderful and visually appealling images of the photographers (that they have taken wih great efforts) and to make it look thrash by saying that the content is not suitable to this site ......... is something which is really annoying .....

Regards,
Adesh Shivkar

J.M. Garg

unread,
Sep 30, 2008, 9:47:53 AM9/30/08
to Adesh Shivkar, Anand Kumar Bhatt, Padmini Raghavan, indiantreepix
As such discussions will not lead us anywhere- this topic is closed for any further discussion. May I request everybody to pl. cooperate with me.

Mahadeswara Swamy

unread,
Sep 30, 2008, 9:55:49 AM9/30/08
to Padmini Raghavan, sibda...@gmail.com, indiantreepix
I agree with the views of Ms Padmini Raghavan

----- Original Message ----
From: Padmini Raghavan <pad...@gmail.com>
To: "sibda...@gmail.com" <sibda...@gmail.com>
Cc: indiantreepix <indian...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 10:57:33 PM
Subject: [indiantreepix:5131] Re: Dipkadi montanum

 I am afraid it is becoming a fashion to send photos which are marvels of composition and colour and which would make stunning wall hangings. However as this is not primarily a photography site ( with exposure and lens details etc) maybe it would be better to show the whole plant or tree followed by it's individual parts so that everyone is able to enrich their knowledge of flora. 
 I, for one, have had  the thrill of recognising many  previously unnamed plants and trees from the detailed views shown of the different parts of the plant or tree.
This is not to detract from the artistic value of the pictures shown but to hope that the content would be more suitable to this site.
 Padmini Raghavan.

 
On 9/26/08, sibda...@gmail.com <sibda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Recently several photos appeared showing only flowers or the
inflorescens of the plants. Pl. try to include at least the leaves, if
the whole plant can not be accommodated

On Sep 26, 9:26 pm, "satish phadke" <phadke.sat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dipkadi montanum
> A Liliaceae family member seen amongst a lot of Strbilanthus bushes on Kas
> plateau.
> Satish Phadke
>
>  Dipkadi montanum.jpg
> 189KViewDownload





Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Click here.

J.M. Garg

unread,
Sep 30, 2008, 10:29:15 AM9/30/08
to Mahadeswara Swamy, Padmini Raghavan, sibda...@gmail.com, indiantreepix
Hi, Mahadeswara ji,
This is this topic is now closed for discussion. May I request your cooperation pl.

JM Garg

unread,
Jul 13, 2017, 5:19:49 AM7/13/17
to efloraofindia, Satish Phadke
I think it should be Dipcadi ursulae as the bract appears longer than the pedicel as well as per images herein.
Dipkadi montanum.jpg
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages