Re: [efloraofindia:80757] Re: Malvaceae week 952011-9112011 UD 020Bombaxceiba Lal Sheemul

8 views
Skip to first unread message

formp...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 9, 2011, 7:27:08 AM9/9/11
to Satish Phadke, Efloraindia, Ushadi micromini
Liked the idea of merger like the caporates.
But would have preferred individual entity. They have there own characters, speciaities. Why merge?
Ayway who am I to even cast the vote infront of the gaints among the scientists? But I feel everyone should have there own space.
Madhuri
------Original Message------
From: Satish Phadke
Sender: Efloraindia
To: Dr Pejaver Madhuri
Cc: Ushadi micromini
Cc: Efloraindia
Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:80757] Re: Malvaceae week 952011-9112011 UD 020Bombaxceiba Lal Sheemul
Sent: Sep 9, 2011 4:04 PM

Yes Madhuri ji I was reluctant to post initially as I had very limited quota from Malvaceae. But after looking at some posts I came to know about this business of mergers and acquisitions similar to large corporate groups. I was happy later to include all my Bombacaceae and Sterculiaceae pictures. By the way Tiliaceae with many Grewias are still there. Let us see how much one can post....... Dr Satish Phadke On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:56 AM, <formp...@yahoo.com> wrote: You and me r sailing in same boat. I knew a little Botany prior. You r learning it now. But to be frank in my jr BSc. I use to like Botany very much. But there were 33 families for study. I did not like Taxonomy much then, if I had taken Botany as my major I would have to learn 66 families. Sooooo went for Zoology. I give the entire credit to this heterogenous group which made me take interest in taxonomy. The credit goes to Gargji too who invited me on the group. Thanks again Madhuri Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: Ushadi micromini <micromi...@gmail.com> Sender: indian...@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:24:39 To: efloraofindia<indian...@googlegroups.com> Subject: [efloraofindia:80657] Re: Malvaceae week 952011-9112011 UD 020 Bombax  ceiba Lal Sheemul On Sep 9, 7:44 am, ushadi Micromini <microminipho...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes Madhuri.... keep it open... this family is in a great flux... APG APGII > and Thorne systems come to mind...  each system it seems keeps moving the > chess pieces around....in subfamily, and tribes... so one never knows (esp > people like me semi serious "non-botanist-botanist" types... for me this was > a source of confusion and apprehension,) > > May be as the data is coordinated...  Balkarji would give us his take on the > classification!! > > ha ha Balkarji one more job!! > > usha di > > ===== > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Madhuri Pejaver <formpeja...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > > hey some reorientation is occuring in brain. > > Again never occured that Katesavari i
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

Gurcharan Singh

unread,
Sep 9, 2011, 7:43:37 AM9/9/11
to formp...@yahoo.com, Satish Phadke, Efloraindia, Ushadi micromini
Madhuri ji

There are three major Systems of recent Systems of classification: APG III (2009), Takhtajan (2009) and Thorne (2007) who all include these under Malvaceae and this has been done after decades of search especially at DNA level, and it is advisable to follow them. If all of us use our own space then the whole process of arranging more than quarter million flowering plants would be a great mess. Same is the case with names, although name changes are headache it is sane to follow what is latest trend.


-- 
Dr. Gurcharan Singh
Retired Associate Professor, Department of Botany, SGTB Khalsa College
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
Phone: 01125518297; Mobile: 9810359089

Satish Phadke

unread,
Sep 9, 2011, 11:14:04 AM9/9/11
to Gurcharan Singh, formp...@yahoo.com, Efloraindia, Ushadi micromini
Yes
Well said Sir.
Scientific and logical...

Ushadi micromini

unread,
Sep 9, 2011, 6:09:45 PM9/9/11
to efloraofindia

what happened to my thread? where did the origins disappear ?????


Is it possible to correct this so the continuity is maintained?
Usha di
==========


On Sep 9, 8:14 pm, Satish Phadke <drsmpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes
> Well said Sir.
> Scientific and logical...
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Gurcharan Singh <singh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Madhuri ji
>
> > There are three major Systems of recent Systems of classification: APG III
> > (2009), Takhtajan (2009) and Thorne (2007) who all include these under
> > Malvaceae and this has been done after decades of search especially at DNA
> > level, and it is advisable to follow them. If all of us use our own space
> > then the whole process of arranging more than quarter million flowering
> > plants would be a great mess. Same is the case with names, although name
> > changes are headache it is sane to follow what is latest trend.
>
> > --
> > Dr. Gurcharan Singh
> > Retired Associate Professor, Department of Botany, SGTB Khalsa College
>
> > University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
> > Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
> > Phone: 01125518297; Mobile: 9810359089
> >http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/
>
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM, <formpeja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Liked the idea of merger like the caporates.
> >> But would have preferred individual entity. They have there own
> >> characters, speciaities. Why merge?
> >> Ayway who am I to even cast the vote infront of the gaints among the
> >> scientists? But I feel everyone should have there own space.
> >> Madhuri
> >> ------Original Message------
> >> From: Satish Phadke
> >> Sender: Efloraindia
> >> To: Dr Pejaver Madhuri
> >> Cc: Ushadi micromini
> >> Cc: Efloraindia
> >> Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:80757] Re: Malvaceae week 952011-9112011 UD
> >> 020Bombaxceiba Lal Sheemul
> >> Sent: Sep 9, 2011 4:04 PM
>
> >> Yes Madhuri ji I was reluctant to post initially as I had very limited
> >> quota from Malvaceae. But after looking at some posts I came to know about
> >> this business of mergers and acquisitions similar to large corporate groups.
> >> I was happy later to include all my Bombacaceae and Sterculiaceae pictures.
> >> By the way Tiliaceae with many Grewias are still there. Let us see how much
> >> one can post....... Dr Satish Phadke On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:56 AM, <
> >> formpeja...@yahoo.com> wrote: You and me r sailing in same boat. I knew a
> >> little Botany prior. You r learning it now. But to be frank in my jr BSc. I
> >> use to like Botany very much. But there were 33 families for study. I did
> >> not like Taxonomy much then, if I had taken Botany as my major I would have
> >> to learn 66 families. Sooooo went for Zoology. I give the entire credit to
> >> this heterogenous group which made me take interest in taxonomy. The credit
> >> goes to Gargji too who invited me on the group. Thanks again Madhuri Sent
> >> from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: Ushadi micromini
> >> <microminipho...@gmail.com> Sender: indian...@googlegroups.com Date:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages