47-TSP-ID-27APR2016-3: Giant fern @ Bisle for ID : 6 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (3)
Kindly identify this plant giant fern
Habit: Erect herb
Habitat: Wild, terrestrial, Wet evergreen forest
Sighting: Bisle, Sakaleshpur, Karnataka, about 1000 msl
We have done study for this region and especially I’ve noted this particular place earlier.
These gigantic ferns are nothing but mostly Angiopteris evecta (G. Forst.) Hoffm. intermixed with few fronds of the tree fern Cyathea sp.
These ferns are perennial in nature and can be found thriving well in the region with high moisture content especially close to waterfalls and streams as they are at this particular place.
No – it’s a Cyathea 1. is stipe spiny or not? 2. can I see a close-up of the underside of a pinnule?
Most likely C. spinulosa. But close-up needed.
SK643 13 JUL-2017:ID : 4 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (6)
Location: Soureni, Mirik, India
Date: 20 May 2017
Wall. ?? or (Wall. ex Hook.) Holtt. ??
Sorry – totally unidentifiable as photos do not show anything one must see in order to identify tree-ferns! Can I again recommend reading the literature about how to identify each group of ferns, rather than depending on sending photos for someone to look at! To work in Botany one MUST learn the characters of the species and thus know what to photograph.
Anyway here goes (for tree-ferns):
1. The stipe-photo should be close enough to show clearly if there are blunt thorns on the stipe-base – these photos don’t show it – but I extrapolate that they are present/.
In this case because the stipe and rachis are not black, it is nothing to do with the C. gigantea/henryi/khasiyana group.
2. Large photos of “a tree-fern” are actually of no use at all.
3. The lamina – you photographed the top-surface – but this tells you nothing! We need to see the pattern of the sori. However I kow they will not be in V-shaped patterns as in C. gigantea and C. henryi.
The species can only be C. spinulosa or C. chinensis.
4. But there we must stop. You have to show a good, clear, in-focus magnified photo of a non fertile part of the undersurface of a single pinnule. This is because we have to see the scales on the costules and in particular, whether there are many tiny hairs on the costule undersurface (C. chinensis) or just scales only and no tiny hairs (C. spinulosa).
Finally I’d guess wildly without evidence from morphology that this should most likely be the very common C. spinulosa – but you need to get a lens and examine those pinnule midribs to look for tiny hairs – easy to see in living material.
A word on the nomenclature – if you prefer (I don’t and I think Holttim’s treatment in Cyathea was more appropriate taxonomically) you can call it Alsophila spinulosa.
But if it turns out to be C. chinensis, the nomenclature is more awkward. The valid name in Cyathea is C. brunoniana (C.B.Clarke) C.B.Clarke & Baker, or alternatively in Alsophila, Alsophila costularis. This brunoniana is nothing to do with Sphaeropteris brunoniana (Wall.) R.M. Tryon, a quite different brunoniana – which in Cyathea is C. sollyana (Griff.) Fraser-Jenk.