--
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 view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CADkfUKt28TAcaaX%3DCzaMzMYwZe6ugus_wLcj0DPvT71on6%2Brug%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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 view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CADkfUKt28TAcaaX%3DCzaMzMYwZe6ugus_wLcj0DPvT71on6%2Brug%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CA%2BiuSFB8fQyLY0vnj81GuNQdHM_JY2oW9e-8CyfOSbhb2kKLCw%40mail.gmail.com.
Forwarding again for Id assistance please.
Some earlier relevant feedback:
This is not at all P. rangachariarii. Just now I noticed that the male sepals are 6. The characters of the plant point to very close alliance to Phyllanthus clarkei in almost all characters. But I have some doubts because P. clarkei in not known from peninsular India so far and the leaves here are stiffly coriaceous. The glands in male flowers appear to be 6 instead of 3. So, please study your plant very carefully once again and compare with P. clarkei (now called Cathetus clarkei). With regards, Tapas |
Even closer to P. gardnerianus but leaves sessile and thickly coriaceous.- from Tapas ji |
Thanks for pointing the mistake in id. You are absolutely correct it can't be Phyllanthus rangachariarii owing to the characters you mentioned i.e. 6 perianth and glands in male flowers instead of 4 in P. rangachariarii). Additionally my plant is much smaller is height not taller than 2 feets while P. rangachariarii is a much bigger shrub upto 2 metre tall. I also checked type material images available on BSI virtual herbarium, confirming the same. |
With best regards Ashutosh Sharma |
This must be Phyllanthus narayanswamii Gamble |
Under shrub upto 2 metre tall. Leaves alternative,sessile, elliptic coriaceous with thickened recurved margins. Perianth lobes 6 with 6 small glands in male flowers. Fruit capsule globose with verrucose glands. All these characters are matching with Phyllanthus narayanswamii Gamble So our plant is Phyllanthus narayanswamii Gamble, which is already reported from the Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve where I have clicked this plant. Tapas sir I hope the identity is correct now! |
With best regards Ashutosh Sharma |
Syn. of Phyllanthus virgatus G.Forst. ? ? Looks different from images at http://flora-peninsula-indica.ces.iisc.ac.in/herbsheet.php?id=3940&cat=7 ! |
Now , Cathetus virgatus (G.Forst.) R.W.Bouman ?? Please compare with Phyllanthus macraei Müll.Arg. . Now: Cathetus rheedei (Wight) R.W.Bouman Thank you. Saroj Kasaju |
Someone recently united P. narayanswamii under P. virgatus but kept P. gardnerianus distinct. Bouman et al. (2022) maintained all as distinct. I am fully confused here. P. virgatus is a Pacific species while P. simplex is Asian. Someone recently informed me that P. narayanswsmii is distinct from P. gardnerianus by habit, habitat and DNA data. |
My studies based on specimens and images indicate that narayanswamii and gardnerianus should be merged but considering the confusions, I will not go for any taxonomic changes. Let someone clarify these 3 species with field data combined with DNA studies. With regards, Tapas |
Thanks for your valuable comments Tapas sir. I agree with your views and meanwhile someone clarify these 3 species based on field data combined with DNA/molecular studies, Garg ji in my opinion we should keep it as a separate species on our website under page Phyllanthus narayanswamii Gamble. |
Please note than Verwijs et al. 2019 while synonymizing P. narayanswamii under P. virgatus have also mentioned some difference "The nervature of the leaves on the type of P. narayanswamii differs a little bit from other specimens of P. virgatus in the prominent nervature on the lower side of the leaf blade". Also it is notable that when the publication of Verwijs et al. came in October 2019, at around same time (just two months before in August) came another publication in Phytotaxa entitled "Taxonomic and habitat update to Phyllanthus narayanswamii (Phyllanthaceae): an endemic and endangered species from southern India" which is not referred in the publication of Verwijs et al. because as I mentioned earlier they got published round same time. So before this publication only little data was available about P. narayanswamii with no any images, so who knows if the publication on P. narayanswamii taxonomic and habitat update would have came earlier, Verwijs et al. may have retained the distinct species status of P. narayanswamii as they retained the status of P. gardnerianus and P. tararae. They have also mentioned in their paper abstract that "The species complex around Phyllanthus virgatus remains taxonomically difficult" and we are suffering from the same thing here... Thanks and regards Ashutosh Sharma |
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/2bd5e954-fce4-4f30-9df4-30b2b7551419n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CA%2BiuSFB7LkbvEtfTMguXZofMXmm%2BoOmBfXxCtMAzpbkiVjXNKg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CAEf%3DytRBkk3Wr23bns_YM1qxPbOxa%3DKR00af%3DbxsU%2BJDVr3gNg%40mail.gmail.com.