Mazus surculosus ?

[J.M. Garg]

Forwarding again for Id confirmation or otherwise please.

Some earlier relevant feedback:

The genus Mazus is no longer in the Scrophulariaceae family but Phymaceae which includes The Kew Herbarium image: http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage.do?imageBarcode=K001117588  Photos: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl There are two species of Mazus to consider.  In 'Flora Simlensis' there is also M.rugosus - which Stewart and 'The Plant List' has this as M.japonicus. Flora Simlensis has M.japonicus as the common species at Shimla - he distinguishes it by the lack of runners and calyx lobed half-way down cf. shortly toothed in M.surculosus. For M.japonicus see: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl Your images show runners.  I don't think that Flora Simlensis calyx characteristic holds true, so M.surculosus does seem the most likely. I have visited Manali several times.  In the mid-1980s I led botanical tours to Lahoul, with Manali as the base, recording Mazus surculosus in the Deodar forest there but did not consider other species at the time. Best Wishes, Chris Chadwell

Pl. also check comparative images & keys at ‎Mazus         Mazus japonicus (Thunb.) Kuntze is now a synonym of Mazus pumilus (Burm.f.) Steenis This specimen appears to be quite interesting.- from me

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
Date: 25 September 2016 at 14:50
Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:252074] Mazus surculosus ABJUL01/12
To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Ushadi Micromini <micromi...@gmail.com>

Found a white Mazus on my walk today. Is it normal? To me it looks like M. surculosus only but I could be wrong. Please advise.

Thanks.

Ashwini

[Anil Thakur]

I think, I should be Mazus delavayi.

Key to Mazus species in H.P.:

1. Runners present, leafy calyx shortly toothed:
M. surculosus
1. Runners absent, calyx lobed half way down:
2. Stem hairy, calyx larger than pedicel:
M. delavayi
2. Stem glabrous or sparsely hairy, calyx shorter than
pedicel: M. pumilus


Regards
ANIL THAKUR

On 10/5/16, J.M. Garg <jmg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forwarding again for Id confirmation or otherwise please.
>
> Some earlier relevant feedback:
> The genus Mazus is no longer in the Scrophulariaceae family but Phymaceae
> which includes
>
> The Kew Herbarium image: http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/ge
> tImage.do?imageBarcode=K001117588
>
> Photos: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus%22&
> tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl
>
> There are two species of Mazus to consider. In 'Flora Simlensis' there is

> also *M.rugosus* -
> which Stewart and 'The Plant List' has this as *M.japonicus*.
>
> Flora Simlensis has *M.japonicus* as the common species at Shimla - he

> distinguishes
> it by the lack of runners and calyx lobed half-way down cf. shortly toothed

> in *M.surculosus*.
>
> For *M.japonicus* see:
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl
>
> *Your images show runners. I don't think that Flora Simlensis calyx
> characteristic holds true,*
> *so M.surculosus does seem the most likely.*

>
> I have visited Manali several times. In the mid-1980s I led botanical
> tours to Lahoul, with Manali as the

> base, recording *Mazus surculosus* in the Deodar forest there but did not

> consider other species at the time.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Chadwell
>
> Pl. also check comparative images & keys at ‎Mazus

> <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus>
>
> *Mazus* *japonicus* (Thunb.) Kuntze is now a synonym
> <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about/#synonym> of *Mazus pumilus
> *(Burm.f.)
> Steenis <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2507398>

> This specimen appears to be quite interesting.- from me
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
> Date: 25 September 2016 at 14:50
> Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:252074] Mazus surculosus ABJUL01/12
> To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: Ushadi Micromini <micromi...@gmail.com>
>
>

> Found a white *Mazus* on my walk today. Is it normal? To me it looks like
> *M.
> surculosus* only but I could be wrong. Please advise.
>
> Thanks.
> Ashwini
>


--
With best Regards,

Dr. Anil Kumar Thakur

[Anil Thakur]

Now, Mazus pumilus var. delavayi (Bonati) T.L. Chin ex D.Y. Hong is an
accepted name for M. delavayi.

On 10/5/16, J.M. Garg <jmg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Forwarding again for Id confirmation or otherwise please.
>
> Some earlier relevant feedback:
> The genus Mazus is no longer in the Scrophulariaceae family but Phymaceae
> which includes
>

> The Kew Herbarium image: http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/ge
> tImage.do?imageBarcode=K001117588
>
> Photos: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus%22&
> tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl
>

> There are two species of Mazus to consider. In 'Flora Simlensis' there is

> also *M.rugosus* -
> which Stewart and 'The Plant List' has this as *M.japonicus*.
>

> Flora Simlensis has *M.japonicus* as the common species at Shimla - he

> distinguishes
> it by the lack of runners and calyx lobed half-way down cf. shortly toothed

> in *M.surculosus*.
>
> For *M.japonicus* see:
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl
>

> *Your images show runners. I don't think that Flora Simlensis calyx
> characteristic holds true,*
> *so M.surculosus does seem the most likely.*

>
> I have visited Manali several times. In the mid-1980s I led botanical
> tours to Lahoul, with Manali as the

> base, recording *Mazus surculosus* in the Deodar forest there but did not

> consider other species at the time.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Chadwell
>
> Pl. also check comparative images & keys at ‎Mazus

> <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus>
>
> *Mazus* *japonicus* (Thunb.) Kuntze is now a synonym
> <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about/#synonym> of *Mazus pumilus
> *(Burm.f.)
> Steenis <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2507398>

> This specimen appears to be quite interesting.- from me
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
> Date: 25 September 2016 at 14:50
> Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:252074] Mazus surculosus ABJUL01/12
> To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: Ushadi Micromini <micromi...@gmail.com>
>
>

> Found a white *Mazus* on my walk today. Is it normal? To me it looks like
> *M.
> surculosus* only but I could be wrong. Please advise.
>
> Thanks.
> Ashwini
>

[chrischa...@btinternet.com]

Thanks Dr Thakur for drawing this to my/our attention.  Mostly a question of me too rapidly assuming a likely identification without checking properly - especially with plants from what are 'low' elevations for me.  As soon as it gets to 2000m or less, my familiarity and knowledge rapidly decreases!  I know little of the Mazus genus,

largely limited to a casual look at specimens growing around Manali some 30 years ago....  I now see that Stewart gave Mazus delavayii as a synonym for M.japonicus (also M.rugosus).  He found this common, ascending to 2100m in rice fields and pond borders in N.Pakistan and Kashmir.

A common mistake I have observed is for people to assume that 'Flowers of the Himalaya' is a FULL flora.  It is merely a guide to a fraction of the total flora (often not much more than 1/10th described or illustrated), concentrating on the commonest and showiest species.  Too many users of this book automatically "match" at a quick glance what they see or photograph in the Himalaya with the single photo in that book.  Often the image does not show important characteristics which distinguish it from similar species.   This leads to numerous misidentifications.  Many do not bother to check the geographic distribution, altitudinal range or typical habit for each species to see if the identification makes sense or should be double or triple-checked!

I am not a taxonomist but would think that characteristics of calyces are stronger than the presence or not of runners.  I am curious where the key to Mazus species in H.P. comes from?

I note from images taken in H.P. that some examples have much smaller calyces in relation to the flowers - though these seem also to have the calyx +/- cut to half way as well.   So are these within Mazus surculosus or M. pumilus var. delavayii?  

See: http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Suckering%20Mazus.html  (I would not described the calyx as 'toothed') and https://forwildlife.wordpress.com/wild-flowers-of-kalatope-khajjiar-sanctuary/wildflowers-in-june/ (I would say the calyx here is definitely not just toothed and approaches the being lobed half way down).

 As for the line drawing in FOC for M.surculosus, this shows small calyces which could be described as having toothed lobes), see: http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=3540&flora_id=2    and then there are the line drawings for M.pumilus see: http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=4701&flora_id=2 (I would say that the images taken by Ashwini certainly have a prominent calyx, small flowers in relation to the calyx and do not fit number 3 i.e. var. delavayii) Strange and remiss of the authors to include flowers in the line drawings of M.surculosus and not for M.pumilus which makes it difficult to judge flower/calyx size.

I remain somewhat uncertain/confused.  One problem in interpreting FOI is that the authors, no matter how botanically able, may only have seen specimens from Chinese territory.  The variation of species in NW may well be different/not able, so one has to be cautious here.

Anyhow, I have started to inspect Mazus more closely.  The fine photos of Ashwini (which show close-up the characteristics of the calyx) and others plus line drawings in FOC are much more useful than low resolution images of herbarium specimens.   As always, "a picture paints a thousand words".  Putting into words plant variation is often difficult.  Keys should always be viewed with caution and not accepted without question.

The currently accepted name is noted - along with various nomenclatural changes over time.  Of course not all changes/revisions are accepted.

I approach plant identification as detective work.  This is another example and further evidence that we cannot rely solely upon Hooker's 'Flora of British India', which is well out-of-date (though he and other contributors did a remarkable job for the time).  Every checklist and flora (no matter how reliable they are) become

out-of-date as soon as they are published!

[J.M. Garg]

--
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 indiantreepix+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to indian...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna'

Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia. 

For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group (largest in the world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia website (with a species database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images).

The whole world uses my Image Resource of more than a thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as per Creative Commons license attached with each image.

Also author of 'A Photoguide to the Birds of Kolkata & Common Birds of India'.

[Ashwini Bhatia]

Dear Chris and Dr Thakur,

Thank you both very much for your advice. My apologies for a late reply! I wanted to revisit the plant and collect more evidence before writing. I found the plant this morning and here are some observations with photographs;

1. Calyx lobes (8-9mm) are longer than the peduncle (5mm)

2. Calyx lobe edges are not toothed

3. The stem bearing flowers is hairy and runner-like

4. Flowers edge out the calyx slightly in corolla length.

Please advise.

Thanks.

Ashwini

[Anil Thakur]

Respected Chadwell

Four species of Mazus have been reported from Himachal Pradesh. Manali
area has only two (M. surculous and M. pumilus). Other two species
found in H.P. are M. delavayi (now M. pumilus var. delavayi) and M.
harmandi.

The key, I have posted, was taken from "FLORA OF CHAMBA" by Singh and
Sharma. Many other FLORAS have been written on plants of H.P. I have
all of them with me except one on Lahul & Spiti.

Regards
ANIL THAKUR

On 10/7/16, J.M. Garg <jmg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: chrischa...@btinternet.com <chrischa...@btinternet.com>
> Date: 7 October 2016 at 01:00
> Subject: [efloraofindia:253132] Re: Mazus surculosus ?
> To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: ash...@ashwinibhatia.com
>
>
> Thanks Dr Thakur for drawing this to my/our attention. Mostly a question
> of me too rapidly assuming a likely identification without checking
> properly - especially with plants from what are 'low' elevations for me.
> As soon as it gets to 2000m or less, my familiarity and knowledge rapidly
> decreases! I know little of the Mazus genus,
> largely limited to a casual look at specimens growing around Manali some 30

> years ago.... I now see that Stewart gave *Mazus delavayii* as a synonym
> for *M.japonicus* (also *M.rugosus*). He found this common, ascending to

> 2100m in rice fields and pond borders in N.Pakistan and Kashmir.
>

> *A common mistake I have observed is for people to assume that 'Flowers of

> the Himalaya' is a FULL flora. It is merely a guide to a fraction of the
> total flora (often not much more than 1/10th described or illustrated),
> concentrating on the commonest and showiest species. Too many users of
> this book automatically "match" at a quick glance what they see or
> photograph in the Himalaya with the single photo in that book. Often the
> image does not show important characteristics which distinguish it from
> similar species. This leads to numerous misidentifications. Many do not
> bother to check the geographic distribution, altitudinal range or typical
> habit for each species to see if the identification makes sense or should

> be double or triple-checked!*

>
> I am not a taxonomist but would think that characteristics of calyces are

> stronger than the presence or not of runners. * I am curious where the key
> to Mazus species in H.P. comes from?*

>
> I note from images taken in H.P. that some examples have much smaller
> calyces in relation to the flowers - though these seem also to have the

> calyx +/- cut to half way as well. *So are these within Mazus surculosus
> or M. pumilus var. delavayii**?*

>
> See: http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Suckering%20Mazus.html
> (I would not described the calyx as 'toothed') and
> https://forwildlife.wordpress.com/wild-flowers-of-kalatope-

> khajjiar-sanctuary/wildflowers-in-june/ (I would say the calyx here is

> definitely not just toothed and approaches the being lobed half way down).
>

> As for the line drawing in FOC for *M.surculosus*, this shows small

> calyces which could be described as having toothed lobes), see:
> http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=3540&flora_id=2 and

> then there are the line drawings for *M.pumilus* see:

> http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=4701&flora_id=2 (I would
> say that the images taken by Ashwini certainly have a prominent calyx,

> small flowers in relation to the calyx and *do not* fit number 3 i.e. var.
> *delavayii)* *Strange and remiss of the authors to include flowers in the

> line drawings of M.surculosus and not for M.pumilus which makes it

> difficult to judge flower/calyx size.*
>
> *I remain somewhat uncertain/confused. One problem in interpreting FOI is

> that the authors, no matter how botanically able, may only have seen
> specimens from Chinese territory. The variation of species in NW may well

> be different/not able, so one has to be cautious here.*
>
> *Anyhow, I have started to inspect Mazus more closely. The fine photos of

> Ashwini (which show close-up the characteristics of the calyx) and others
> plus line drawings in FOC are much more useful than low resolution images
> of herbarium specimens. As always, "a picture paints a thousand words".
> Putting into words plant variation is often difficult. Keys should always

> be viewed with caution and not accepted without question.*

>
> The currently accepted name is noted - along with various nomenclatural
> changes over time. Of course not all changes/revisions are accepted.
>

> *I* *approach plant identification as detective work. This is another

> example and further evidence that we cannot rely solely upon Hooker's
> 'Flora of British India', which is well out-of-date (though he and other
> contributors did a remarkable job for the time). Every checklist and flora

> (no matter how reliable they are) become*
> *out-of-date as soon as they are published!*

>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 13:37:50 UTC+1, JM Garg wrote:
>
>> Forwarding again for Id confirmation or otherwise please.
>>
>> Some earlier relevant feedback:
>> The genus Mazus is no longer in the Scrophulariaceae family but Phymaceae
>> which includes
>>

>> The Kew Herbarium image: http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/ge
>> tImage.do?imageBarcode=K001117588
>>
>> Photos: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+surculosus%22&
>> tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl
>>

>> There are two species of Mazus to consider. In 'Flora Simlensis' there
>> is

>> also *M.rugosus* -
>> which Stewart and 'The Plant List' has this as *M.japonicus*.
>>

>> Flora Simlensis has *M.japonicus* as the common species at Shimla - he

>> distinguishes
>> it by the lack of runners and calyx lobed half-way down cf. shortly

>> toothed in *M.surculosus*.
>>
>> For *M.japonicus* see:
>> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Mazus+japonicus%22&tbm=
>> isch&gws_rd=ssl
>>

>> *Your images show runners. I don't think that Flora Simlensis calyx
>> characteristic holds true,*
>> *so M.surculosus does seem the most likely.*

>>
>> I have visited Manali several times. In the mid-1980s I led botanical
>> tours to Lahoul, with Manali as the

>> base, recording *Mazus surculosus* in the Deodar forest there but did not

>> consider other species at the time.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Chris Chadwell
>>
>> Pl. also check comparative images & keys at ‎Mazus

>> <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/m---z/p/phrymaceae/mazus>
>>
>> *Mazus* *japonicus* (Thunb.) Kuntze is now a synonym
>> <http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/about/#synonym> of *Mazus pumilus
>> *(Burm.f.)
>> Steenis <http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2507398>

>> This specimen appears to be quite interesting.- from me
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
>> Date: 25 September 2016 at 14:50
>> Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:252074] Mazus surculosus ABJUL01/12
>> To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>
>> Cc: Ushadi Micromini <micromi...@gmail.com>
>>
>>

>> Found a white *Mazus* on my walk today. Is it normal? To me it looks like
>> *M.
>> surculosus* only but I could be wrong. Please advise.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Ashwini
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> --
> 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 post to this group, send email to indian...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> With regards,
> J.M.Garg
>
> 'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna'

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmgarg1>

>
> Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia

> <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/award-for-efloraofindia>.

>
> For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora,
> please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group

> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indiantreepix> (largest in the

> world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia

> website <https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/> (with a species

> database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images).
>
> The whole world uses my Image Resource

> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:J.M.Garg> of more than a

> thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc.
> (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as
> per Creative Commons license attached with each image.
>
> Also author of 'A Photoguide to the Birds of Kolkata & Common Birds of
> India'.
>

[C CHADWELL]

The additional observations and photos are helpful.

I think this illustrates that this genus needs further study/checking.

Best Wishes,

Chris Chadwell

81 Parlaunt Road 
SLOUGH
SL3 8BE
UK

www.shpa.org.uk

---

From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
To: chrischa...@btinternet.com
Cc: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>; Anil Thakur <aniltha...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 7 October 2016, 11:21
Subject: Re: Mazus surculosus ?

[Ashwini Bhatia]

Thanks Chris. I agree, this needs further consideration.

Regards,

Ashwini

<_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_07Oct2016.jpg>

<_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg>

[J.M. Garg]

There is one more option as discussed in details of Alok ji's plant from Himachal: Mazus goodeniifolius ?

On 11 October 2016 at 08:13, Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com> wrote:

Thanks Chris. I agree, this needs further consideration.

Regards,

Ashwini

On 10 Oct 2016, at 18:22, C CHADWELL <chrischadwell261@btinternet.com> wrote:

The additional observations and photos are helpful.

I think this illustrates that this genus needs further study/checking.

Best Wishes,

Chris Chadwell

81 Parlaunt Road 
SLOUGH
SL3 8BE
UK

www.shpa.org.uk

---

From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>

To: chrischadwell261@btinternet.com
Cc: efloraofindia <indiantreepix@googlegroups.com>; Anil Thakur <aniltha...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, 7 October 2016, 11:21
Subject: Re: Mazus surculosus ?

Dear Chris and Dr Thakur,

Thank you both very much for your advice. My apologies for a late reply! I wanted to revisit the plant and collect more evidence before writing. I found the plant this morning and here are some observations with photographs;

1. Calyx lobes (8-9mm) are longer than the peduncle (5mm)

2. Calyx lobe edges are not toothed

3. The stem bearing flowers is hairy and runner-like

4. Flowers edge out the calyx slightly in corolla length.

Please advise.

Thanks.

Ashwini

<_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_07Oct2016.jpg>

--
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 indiantreepix+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to indian...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indiantreepix.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

'Creating awareness of Indian Flora & Fauna'

Winner of Wipro-NFS Sparrow Awards 2014 for efloraofindia. 

For identification, learning, discussion & documentation of Indian Flora, please visit/ join our Efloraofindia Google e-group (largest in the world- around 2700 members & 2,40,000 messages on 31.3.16) or Efloraofindia website (with a species database of more than 11,000 species & 2,20,000 images).

The whole world uses my Image Resource of more than a thousand species & eight thousand images of Birds, Butterflies, Plants etc. (arranged alphabetically & place-wise). You can also use them for free as per Creative Commons license attached with each image.

[Ashwini Bhatia]

Thank you Mr Garg. I have been ruminating on that too. Hopefully we will have more expert advice soon.

Regards,

Ashwini

[J.M. Garg]

Thanks, Chadwell ji.

As per GBIF & Catalogue of Life it is accepted name, while The Plant List Ver.1.1 states it to be (unresolved).

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: C CHADWELL <chrischa...@btinternet.com>
Date: 18 October 2016 at 00:51
Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:253424] Re: Mazus surculosus ?
To: "J.M. Garg" <jmg...@gmail.com>

Unfortunately, Mazus goodenifolius is not an accepted name in 'The Plant List'.

Stewart knew it as a 'tropical' plant with records from Sind & Punjab. 

Because it has been identified as this does not mean it definitely is.

Cannot easily find an accepted synonym which is accepted either - under Gratiola e.g. 

Best Wishes,

Chris Chadwell

81 Parlaunt Road 
SLOUGH
SL3 8BE
UK

www.shpa.org.uk

---

From: J.M. Garg <jmg...@gmail.com>
To: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
Cc: C CHADWELL <chrischadwell261@btinternet.com>; efloraofindia <indiantreepix@googlegroups.com>; Anil Thakur <aniltha...@gmail.com>; Alok Mahendroo <alokis...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2016, 12:51
Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:253424] Re: Mazus surculosus ?

There is one more option as discussed in details of Alok ji's plant from Himachal: Mazus goodeniifolius ?

On 11 October 2016 at 08:13, Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com> wrote:

Thanks Chris. I agree, this needs further consideration.

Regards,

Ashwini

On 10 Oct 2016, at 18:22, C CHADWELL <chrischadwell261@btinternet. com> wrote:

The additional observations and photos are helpful.

I think this illustrates that this genus needs further study/checking.

Best Wishes,

Chris Chadwell

81 Parlaunt Road 
SLOUGH
SL3 8BE
UK

www.shpa.org.uk

---

From: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>
To: chrischadwell261@btinternet. com

Cc: efloraofindia <indiantreepix@googlegroups. com>; Anil Thakur <aniltha...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, 7 October 2016, 11:21
Subject: Re: Mazus surculosus ?

Dear Chris and Dr Thakur,

Thank you both very much for your advice. My apologies for a late reply! I wanted to revisit the plant and collect more evidence before writing. I found the plant this morning and here are some observations with photographs;

1. Calyx lobes (8-9mm) are longer than the peduncle (5mm)

2. Calyx lobe edges are not toothed

3. The stem bearing flowers is hairy and runner-like

4. Flowers edge out the calyx slightly in corolla length.

Please advise.

Thanks.

Ashwini

<_MG_7482_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_ 7489_07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7491_ 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7492_ 07Oct2016.jpg><_MG_7506_ 07Oct2016.jpg>

On 7 Oct 2016, at 01:00, chrischadwell261@btinternet. com wrote:

Thanks Dr Thakur for drawing this to my/our attention.  Mostly a question of me too rapidly assuming a likely identification without checking properly - especially with plants from what are 'low' elevations for me.  As soon as it gets to 2000m or less, my familiarity and knowledge rapidly decreases!  I know little of the Mazus genus,

largely limited to a casual look at specimens growing around Manali some 30 years ago....  I now see that Stewart gave Mazus delavayii as a synonym for M.japonicus (also M.rugosus).  He found this common, ascending to 2100m in rice fields and pond borders in N.Pakistan and Kashmir.

A common mistake I have observed is for people to assume that 'Flowers of the Himalaya' is a FULL flora.  It is merely a guide to a fraction of the total flora (often not much more than 1/10th described or illustrated), concentrating on the commonest and showiest species.  Too many users of this book automatically "match" at a quick glance what they see or photograph in the Himalaya with the single photo in that book.  Often the image does not show important characteristics which distinguish it from similar species.   This leads to numerous misidentifications.  Many do not bother to check the geographic distribution, altitudinal range or typical habit for each species to see if the identification makes sense or should be double or triple-checked!

I am not a taxonomist but would think that characteristics of calyces are stronger than the presence or not of runners.  I am curious where the key to Mazus species in H.P. comes from?

I note from images taken in H.P. that some examples have much smaller calyces in relation to the flowers - though these seem also to have the calyx +/- cut to half way as well.   So are these within Mazus surculosus or M. pumilus var. delavayii?  

See: http://www.flowersofindia.net/ catalog/slides/Suckering% 20Mazus.html  (I would not described the calyx as 'toothed') and https://forwildlife.wordpress. com/wild-flowers-of-kalatope- khajjiar-sanctuary/ wildflowers-in-june/ (I would say the calyx here is definitely not just toothed and approaches the being lobed half way down).

 As for the line drawing in FOC for M.surculosus, this shows small calyces which could be described as having toothed lobes), see: http://www.efloras.org/object_ page.aspx?object_id=3540& flora_id=2    and then there are the line drawings for M.pumilus see: http://www.efloras.org/object_ page.aspx?object_id=4701& flora_id=2 (I would say that the images taken by Ashwini certainly have a prominent calyx, small flowers in relation to the calyx and do not fit number 3 i.e. var. delavayii) Strange and remiss of the authors to include flowers in the line drawings of M.surculosus and not for M.pumilus which makes it difficult to judge flower/calyx size.

[Gurcharan Singh]

Forwarding for ID

Distributed as  Mazus goodeniifolius ?

Group discussion at

Mazus surculosus ? (google.com)  

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:23:15 PM UTC+5:30 JM Garg wrote:

Thanks, Chadwell ji.

As per GBIF & Catalogue of Life it is accepted name, while The Plant List Ver.1.1 states it to be (unresolved).

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: C CHADWELL <chrischa...@btinternet.com>
Date: 18 October 2016 at 00:51
Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:253424] Re: Mazus surculosus ?
To: "J.M. Garg" <jmg...@gmail.com>

Unfortunately, Mazus goodenifolius is not an accepted name in 'The Plant List'.

Stewart knew it as a 'tropical' plant with records from Sind & Punjab. 

Because it has been identified as this does not mean it definitely is.

Cannot easily find an accepted synonym which is accepted either - under Gratiola e.g. 

Best Wishes,

Chris Chadwell

81 Parlaunt Road 
SLOUGH
SL3 8BE
UK

www.shpa.org.uk

---

From: J.M. Garg <jmg...@gmail.com>
To: Ashwini Bhatia <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>

Cc: C CHADWELL <chrischa...@btinternet.com>; efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>; Anil Thakur <aniltha...@gmail.com>; Alok Mahendroo <alokis...@gmail.com>

[Gurcharan Singh]

Forwarding for ID

Distributed as  Mazus goodeniifolius ?

Group discussion at

Mazus surculosus ? (google.com)  

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JM Garg <jmg...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 6:07:50 PM UTC+5:30
Subject: Mazus surculosus ?
To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: ashwini <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>

[Saroj Kasaju]

Mazus surculosus D.Don ??

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

--
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/eab07b50-6173-4bb7-9c86-183d189f048fn%40googlegroups.com.

[JM Garg]

  Mazus delavayi as per discussions at Kalatope id al190411    

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JM Garg <jmg...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday 5 October, 2016 at 6:07:50 pm UTC+5:30
Subject: Mazus surculosus ?
To: efloraofindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ashwini <ash...@ashwinibhatia.com>