Ipomoea dichroa Choisy, A. L. P. P. de Candolle, Prodr. 9:364. 1845 (syn: (=) Ipomoea arachnosperma Welw.) as per GRIN;
Flora of Panipat: Ipomoea dichroa from village Sutana Pamipat: Ipomoea dichroa from village Sutana Pamipat
Shot from Bank of a Canal
This I suppose is Ipomoea arachnosperma Welw.. Would like to know how you have arrived at ur ID.
Both are synonym Sir
From the Plant List both are different species (Ipomoea dichoroa Hochst. in A. Rich. & Ipomoea arachnosperma Welw.) as per links:
The plant looks to match Ipomoea dichroa to my mind,
I would opine that Ipomoea dichroa is the current accepted name and that Ipomoea arachnosperma has synonym status only.
Ipomoea dichroa (Choisy)
Ipomoea arachnosperma (Welw.)
The current accepted name should be used in place of older outdated synonyms , otherwise people get the impression that synonym in botany means = “The same as” and that is not true because the synonym in botany refers to the outdated name that is no longer current as the legitimate name and that is why it has only the status of synonym.
To me the matter seems to be not as simple. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency of literature. GRIN and IPNI list I. dichroa Choisy (meaning Choisy is the Author of the name), The Plant List mentions I. dichoroa Hochst in A. Rich (which means Hochst. was author of name in publication of A. Rich.), whereas Flora Mozambique (based on Pickering, H. & Roe, E. (2009). Wild Flowers of the Victoria Falls Area Helen Pickering, London Page 54.) lists I. dichroa Hochst. ex Choisy (meaning Hochst. gave the name but Choisy validated it at a later date). I imagine all refer to the same taxon I. dichroa Hochst ex Choisy should be legitimate name. The Plant List considers Ipomoea dichoroa Hochst in A. Rich as synonym of I. calophylla Fenzl., considering I. arachnosperma Welw. as an accepted name and a distinct species, as does also the eFlora of Pakistan.
Let us remember the fact that I. arachnosperma Welw. and I. dichroa Hochst. ex Choisy are heterotypic, originally described as distinct species, and whether they are to be treated as same species (synonyms) or distinct taxa is a matter of taxonomic judgement, and both sets of people treating them as synonyms (when I. dichroa Choisy would be the accepted name) or distinct species would be justified in their own right. But ultimately it is logical to follow most recent interpretation of Flora Mozambique, which treats I. dichroa Hochst ex Choisy as accepted name and I. arachnosperma Welw. as synonym, and followed by GRIN, Flora of Zambia and African Plant Database, 2009. Important to mention that both species had originally been described from Africa .
Thank you for your clarifications regarding the current confusion in different databases referring to Ipomoea dichroa and Ipomoea arachnosperma.
Thanks for your detailed explanation. Just one clarification. There is nothing like accepted legitimate name. Any name is legitimate which has been published according to the rules of nomenclature and can be considered while deciding the correct/accepted name. There can be many legitimate name for a taxon, but only one correct/accepted name. All rest of names legitimate as well as illegitimate ones are its synonyms.
I must wonder about the reasoning involved that “legitimate accepted” name should not be used together, because in order for any accepted name to be accepted , it must have been published and therefore legitimate.
Are you taking a position that ,once a name becomes accepted that it (by virtue of becoming accepted) looses status as ‘legitimate’ (?) and so combination of “accepted legitimate” is an error of nomenclatural terminology ?…is legitimate ‘ implied ‘ in accepted and therefore redundant ?
When we use the term accepted/correct name, it automatically implies that it is a legitimate name, and its mention becomes redundant. You will never, as such find the two being used together.
Thank you for clarifying that legitimate is implied in correct name and therefore redundant to be used in conjunction with accepted / correct name.
Ipoemea ID? : 3 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (2)
Found in Delhi
Here’s another image
Attachments (1)- 2 mb.