Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Taxonomic Practices and Indian Concerns


Affiliations
1 Jade Block, My Home Jewel, Hyderabad 500 048, India
2 Mahatma Gandhi Botanical Garden, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru 560 065, India
 

Plant taxonomy can become complicated if handled without restraint/caution in floral documentation. Effectively, taxonomic practices provide a procedure/method for naming, reporting (publishing) and subsequent cautious filing of materials in the herbaria. A literature scrutiny provides multiple examples of lack of seriousness and dishonesty in varied areas of taxonomic research. In reporting new species, it is always desired to have an in-house deliberation for opinion, as collective wisdom/expertise helps the authors eliminate any omissions that might appear later in publications. Rediscovery reports from India frequently fail to be relevantly content-spirited. Their reporting requires great prudence and rigorous scrutiny. In this article, the long existing partial knowledge in unisexual plants in a few angiosperm families is discussed. Many a time, irrationally, status judgements (IUCN statuses) are assigned to species with inadequate information on distribution details. Nomenclature and taxonomy should go hand in hand to bring in clarity regarding any taxon and to resolve issues. Naming or struggle for a right name appears to be the priority for a near nonexistent species than for their fresh collections. Issues on naming of plants after one’s own masters or relatives to oblige them are also deliberated. Concerns related to herbaria maintenance and failing in the deposition of types and vouchers in herbaria are discussed. The literature without specimen base leads to ambiguity, and spells a debacle in revisionary works and consolidation of floras. Further, there are also apprehensions linked to publishing new combinations based on publications from elsewhere and without having a grasp/judgement of the genera involved. There are also articles concerning lectotypifications undertaken by taxonomists without due enquiry. Such publications may help promote the concerned authors in their careers, but contribute little and generate greater noise in the subject.

Keywords

Explorations, Lectotypification, New and Rare Species, Rediscoveries, Taxonomic Practices.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Thothathri, K. and Das, D., A new Annonaceae from the Andaman Islands. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 1968, 54(3), 430–431.

  • Venkat Ramana, M. et al., The less known Mitrephora andamanica (Annonaceae) from Andaman Islands. Rheedea, 2015, 25(1), 72–76.

  • Khandal, D. et al., Ceropegia lucida – rediscovery and new distribution record for Arunachal Pradesh, India. Curr. Sci., 2017, 113(11), 2077.

  • Shruti, K. et al., Rediscovery of Saussurea andryaloides (Asteraceae: Cardueae) from Uttarakhand, India. Rheedea, 2019, 29(1), 116–118.

  • Hooker, J. D., The Flora of British India, Vols 1–7, L. Reeve & Co, London, pp. 1872–1890.

  • Gamble, J. S., Flora of the Presidency of Madras, Vols 1–3, West, Newman and Adlard, London, UK, pp. 1915–1936.

  • Cooke, T., The Flora of the Presidency of Bombay, Vols 1–2, Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 1903.

  • Prain, D., Bengal Plants, Vols 1–2, N W & Company Printers & Publishers, Calcutta, 1903.

  • Plant Discoveries, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 2019.

  • Srivastava, R. C. et al., Angiosperms of India known only by type collection. J. Threat. Taxa, 2015, 7(8), 7465–7470.

  • Bandyopadhyay, S. et al., Are we following the Art.40.7 of the Code in letter and spirit? Phytotaxa, 2014, 163(4), 239–240.

  • Bandyopadhyay, S. et al., Names of new taxa published and types deposited – a case study. Ann. Plant Sci., 2016, 5(10), 1451– 1457.

  • Bandyopadhyay, S. et al., Failings in holotype deposition of twelve plant names. Indian J. For., 2017, 39(4), 407.

  • Bandyopadhyay, S. et al., Names of new taxa published and types deposited – a second case study. Ann. Plant Sci., 2017, 6, 1585– 1589.

  • Bandyopadhyay, S. et al., Missing holotypes of names in plants, fungi and algae published from India. Int. J. Adv. Res. Bot., 2017, 3(3), 34–39.

  • Srivastava, R. C., A new species of Indian Cycas L. Indian J. Plant Sci., 2014, 3(1), 109–110.

  • Srivastava, R. C. and Jana, B., Cycas darshii RC. Srivast. & B Jana sp. nova. Indian J. Plant Sci., 2014, 3(2), 151–153.

  • Srivastava, R. C. and Singh, L., A new species of Indian Cycas L. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol., 2015, 2(8), 35–37.

  • Turland, N. J. et al., International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Veg., 2018, 159. Koeltz Botanical Books, Glashütten, Germany.

  • Anon., Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules, National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai, 2004; www.nbaindia.org

  • Prasad, V. P., On a 17th Century herbarium specimen and an archival letter in CAL. Nelumbo, 2014, 56, 255–258.

  • Prathapan, K. D. et al., Death sentence on taxonomy in India. Curr. Sci., 2008, 94(2), 170–171.

  • Venu, P. and Sanjappa, M., How accomplished are we for writing our national flora? Curr. Sci., 2019, 116(8), 1299–1303.

  • Sanjappa, M. and Venu, P., Indian herbaria: legacy, floristic documentation and issues of maintenance. In Proceedings on Tropical Plant Collections Legacies from the Past? Essential tools for the Future? (eds Fries, I. and Balslev, H.), The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Denmark, 2017, pp. 149–162.

  • Vijaya Sankar, R. et al., Endemic species, Brachystelma brevitubulatum (Bedd.) Gamble (Asclepiadaceae), relocated after a century. Phytotaxonomy, 2003, 3, 130–133.

  • Kumar, A. and Amaduddin, M., Rediscovery of an endemic and endangered plant (Begonia tessaricarrpa C.B. Clarke) from Arunachal Pradesh, India, after a century. Curr. Sci., 2006, 91(8), 997–998.

  • IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2019. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, Version 14. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2019; http://jr.iucnredlist.org/ documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed on August 2019).

  • Jain, S. K. and Rao, R. R. (eds), An Assessment of Threatened Plants of India, Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, 1983.

  • Nayar, M. P. and Sastry, A. R. K. (eds), Red Data Book of Indian Plants – Vols I–III, Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 1987– 1990.

  • Ganeshaíah, K. N., We need taxonomists not taxa-namists. Curr. Sci., 1998, 75, 412.

  • Kumar, A., Biswamoyopteris biswasi (Saha 1981) or Ichthyophis tricolor (Annandale 1909)? Curr. Sci., 1998, 75, 426–427.

  • Ganesan, R., More on ‘taxanamists’. Curr. Sci., 1998, 75, 1103.

  • Janarthanan, M. K., In defence of ‘taxanamists’. Curr. Sci., 1998, 75, 1103–1104.

  • Hajra, P. K. et al., Hoshiarpuria minutiflora (Scrophulariaceae): a new genus and species from Punjab, India. Kew Bull., 1985, 40(3), 607–608.

  • Philcox, D., Hoshiarpuria Debunked. Kew Bull., 1986, 41(2), 432.

  • Hajra, P. K. et al., Hoshiarpuria minutiflora Hajra et al. in Kew Bull., 1985, 40(3), 607–608; A correction. Indian J. For., 1985, 8(2), 159.

  • van Steenis, C. G. G. J., Papilionopsis Steenis. Nova Guinea Bot., 1960, 3, 17.

  • Verdcourt, B., The identity of Papilionopsis stylidioides (Leguminosee). Kew Bull., 1977, 31(4), 845–846.

  • Rasingam, L. et al., Crotalaria nallamalayana (Fabaceae: Crotalarieae): a new species from Telangana, India. Phytotaxa, 2018, 345(2), 159–164.

  • Ravi Kiran, A. and Singh, R. K., On the identity of Crotalaria nallamalayana Rasingam & J. Swamy (Fabaceae). Phytotaxa, 2018, 374(2), 177.

  • Ellis, J. L., Andrographis nallamalayana Ellis – a new species from Andhra Pradesh, South India. Bull. Bot. Surv. India, 1967, 8, 362.

  • Gnanasekaran, G. et al., Andrographis nallamalayana, a heterotypic synonym of a little-known endemic species A. beddomei (Acanthaceae). Rheedea, 2015, 25(1), 47–53.

  • Hajra, P. K. et al. (eds), Flora of India Vol. 13, Asteraceae: Inuleae-Vernonieae, Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 1993.

  • Robinson, H. and Skvarla, J., Studies on the Paleotropical Vernonieae (Asteraceae): additions to the genus Acilepis from southern Asia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 2009, 122(2), 131–145.

  • Pramanik, A. and Gangopadhyay, M., Flora of India Vol. 1, Menispermaceae (eds Balakrishnan, N. P. and Hajra, P. K.), Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 1993.

  • Balakrishnan, N. P. and Chakrabarty, T., The Family Euphorbiaceae in India: A Synopsis of its Profile, Taxonomy and Bibliography, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 2007, ISBN: 81-211-0579-X.

  • Venkat Ramana, M. et al., Name confusions in Indian cycads. Curr. Sci., 2018, 114(2), 269–272.

  • Singh, R. K. and Garg, A., Floristic Diversity of Valmiki Tiger Reserve, West Champaran District, Bihar, Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi, 2020, ISBN 9978170196747.

  • Bruyns, P. V. et al., A revised, phylogenetically-based concept of Ceropegia (Apocynaceae). S. Afr. J. Bot., 2017, 112, 399–436.

  • Kottaimuthu, R. et al., Some new combinations and new names for flora of India. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol., 2019, 6(10), 33–46.

  • Prasad, K. and Venu, P., A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Brachystelma R. Br. in India, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, 2020.


Abstract Views: 309

PDF Views: 116




  • Taxonomic Practices and Indian Concerns

Abstract Views: 309  |  PDF Views: 116

Authors

Potharaju Venu
Jade Block, My Home Jewel, Hyderabad 500 048, India
Munivenkatappa Sanjappa
Mahatma Gandhi Botanical Garden, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru 560 065, India

Abstract


Plant taxonomy can become complicated if handled without restraint/caution in floral documentation. Effectively, taxonomic practices provide a procedure/method for naming, reporting (publishing) and subsequent cautious filing of materials in the herbaria. A literature scrutiny provides multiple examples of lack of seriousness and dishonesty in varied areas of taxonomic research. In reporting new species, it is always desired to have an in-house deliberation for opinion, as collective wisdom/expertise helps the authors eliminate any omissions that might appear later in publications. Rediscovery reports from India frequently fail to be relevantly content-spirited. Their reporting requires great prudence and rigorous scrutiny. In this article, the long existing partial knowledge in unisexual plants in a few angiosperm families is discussed. Many a time, irrationally, status judgements (IUCN statuses) are assigned to species with inadequate information on distribution details. Nomenclature and taxonomy should go hand in hand to bring in clarity regarding any taxon and to resolve issues. Naming or struggle for a right name appears to be the priority for a near nonexistent species than for their fresh collections. Issues on naming of plants after one’s own masters or relatives to oblige them are also deliberated. Concerns related to herbaria maintenance and failing in the deposition of types and vouchers in herbaria are discussed. The literature without specimen base leads to ambiguity, and spells a debacle in revisionary works and consolidation of floras. Further, there are also apprehensions linked to publishing new combinations based on publications from elsewhere and without having a grasp/judgement of the genera involved. There are also articles concerning lectotypifications undertaken by taxonomists without due enquiry. Such publications may help promote the concerned authors in their careers, but contribute little and generate greater noise in the subject.

Keywords


Explorations, Lectotypification, New and Rare Species, Rediscoveries, Taxonomic Practices.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv120%2Fi7%2F1152-1159