Impatiens sulcata ?

I don’t think it is I amplexicaulis – even uppermost leaves are clearly petiolate (see picture of I. badrinathi in Pusalkar & Singh 2010 for explanation of amplexicaul leaves). There are other species with at least upper leaves amplexicaul, described in Flora of China.

This is also not I. badrinathi, as its spur is short and bend.

Looks similar, but not the same like I. glandulifera and I sulcata.I see rusty coloration on ventral side of lower sepal, lacking as far as I know from both of these species.
How big were flowers? What about capsule shape? Do you have photo of front side of the flower? Some more information about plant habit?

---

Id validation is pending . Plant is rather tall and flowers are also big. I guess  Impatiens glandulifera Royle

Re: Saroj’s guess of Impatiens glandulifera kindly check AND READ THROUGH ALL THE CONTENT OF: https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/impatiens-1

ALSO: https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/how-not-to-attempt-to-identify-plants  INDEED ALL OF MY ‘FLOWERS OF THE NORTH-WEST HIMALAYA – A VIRTUAL GUIDE: https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/fowh/.

I wonder how many Impatiens in the Himalaya have stipular glands?  Any characteristic of foliage which is either diagnostic of a particular species or can help to distinguish between a number of species, when a specimen is not in flower is especially useful is such a challenging genus identification-wise.  It would be helpful if members of eFI (after carefully digesting ALL the content of my ‘virtual’ guide mentioned above) who can access colonies of I.glandulifera in the Himalaya, could check if reddish roots at lower notes do exhibit an antiseptic odour as in the UK.

HAPPY READING… I CONSIDER MY ‘VIRTUAL’ GUIDE (WHICH IS IN ITS EARLY STAGES) SHOULD BE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND READING FOR ALL EFLORAOFINDIA MEMBERS, NOT JUST CONTRIBUTORS OF IMAGES.

As for I.glandulifera, as far as I know, this species is not recorded for Nepal.  Hooker’s record published in 1842 was probably an error.  Hooker’s ‘Flora of British India’ was a decent effort for its time but woefully out-of-date (from the 19th Century) nowadays.  It is littered with errors (not to mention many species not recognised at that time) – hardly surprising how little explored and studied India’s flora was at that time.  To rely on it too heavily is unwise.  I have seen recent pages posted of Crassulaceae from Chowdhery & Wadwha’s ‘Flora of Himachal Pradesh Analysis’ …(1984) which uses the 19th Century nomenclature and taxonomic treatment of Hooker; it is in fact little more than a ABBREVIATED COPY OF CONTENT OF HOOKER’S WORK.  I have no idea what ‘Analysis’ means in this respect.  I do not possess a copy of their ‘flora’.  Perhaps a member can explain?  From the Crassulaceae pages, it seems one would be better of just referring to Hooker (his Flora is available on-line)  BUT recognising just how out-of-date it is……  I hope that Chowdhery & Wadwha gave due acknowledgement of the source of their incredibly brief descriptions – they certainly do not come from observations in Himachal Pradesh themselves nor fresh pressed specimens in Indian herbaria collected by Indian botanists since Independence – as one might reasonably image in a genuine ‘Flora’.

When making a suggestion for an identification, it really is important for eFI members to check whether the suggested species ‘fits’ in terms of prior records for a country/region and altitudinal range.  I am dismayed that few owners of ‘Flowers of the Himalaya’ EVER check this information.  Yes, significant extensions of geographic and altitudinal ranges do occur but not very often.  If e.g. what a reader of this ‘guide’ (it is NOT a ‘Flora’) thinks they have ‘matched’ to a particular species does not ‘tally’, in terms of where it grew then probably, they need to look more closely, as in all probability, what they think will be a misidentification.
Data-bases littered with misidentifications, whether they are printed check-lists or floras or on-line ones, create MAJOR problems.  The objective should always be to ENRICH not ENLARGE a data-base, whether on-line or a traditional herbarium.  What matters is not how large the number of specimens there are in a herbarium or entries in an on-line data-base but its QUALITY i.e. how many are RELIABLY IDENTIFIED.  Nowadays too many people uncritically accept what they read or see.  When one searches/’google’s the name of a plant species DO NOT TOO READILY BELIEVE THE ACCOMPANYING IMAGES ARE OF THE GENUINE ARTICLE – I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION ARE NOT.

---