R. Vijayasankar
unread,Jun 19, 2010, 2:09:47 AM6/19/10Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Rashida Atthar, tanay bose, Dinesh Valke, indiatreepix
Dear Rashida ji, its a difficult question to give a straight forward answer, so...let me try!
Its all part of taxonomy and nomenclature! It shows the different level of our understanding about taxa at different periods of time. It also illustrates the complexity of the group with diverse habit/morphology within this group.
The names mentioned by you were published during 1860s when the understanding about the genus was completely different. Due to some common feature, for e.g. 'phyllanthoid branching' several different species were treated under the genus Phyllanthus even they are morphologically very different. However recent molecular phylogenetic studies helped us to understand the possible relationship between different taxa and thus their improved taxonomic treatment. The taxon namely Phyllanthus malabaricus (for e.g.) was considered a species under Phyllanthus by Mueller who described the plant during 1865. But the latest revisioners (Webster, Govaerts etc.) realized that this plant has more affinity with and having similar morphological characters (also pollen morphology) to Glochidion and further realized that it is nothing but one of the several forms/variations of an existing species G. ellipticum described by Beddome, in this case. Hence the name Phyllanthus malabaricus has become a taxonomic synonym (based on different Type) to Glochidion ellipticum.
Fact: 1. Genera like Phyllanthus, Glochidion, Flueggea, Berynia, Sauropus etc come under same tribe - Phyllantheae (these are closely related).
To put it in a simple way, in the present case, Mueller misidentified his collection and published as a new species under wrong genus! However, we should remember that one-and-a-half centuries ago, there was not much information technology, communication etc. and a botanist at one corner of world had less chance to know the happenings of taxonomic research development at the other corner. We are now in a far better environment, wherein we can access the information real time, across the globe!!!
Hope i have not confused you so much!
Also pl read:
With regards
R. Vijayasankar