IUCN Red List Status: Vulnerable (VU)
Jatropha nana Dalzell & Gibson, Bombay Fl. 229 1861. (syn: Jatropha nana var. bengalense C.H.Rahaman & S.Mondal)
India (W. Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal) as per WCSP;
Jatropha nana Dalzell var. bengalensis C.H. Rahman & S.Mondal (Euphorbiaceae) : 3 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (3)
I am attaching herewith three images of Jatropha nana Dalzell var. bengalensis C.H. Rahman & S.Mondal [in Indian J. Forest. 35(4): 477, f. 1, Plate 1. 2012]; N.P. Balakr. et al. in Fl. India 23: 505. 2012] which is occurring in dry forest beds in Birbhum District, West Bengal. The local name is Chem alu.
It may be mentioned that Nerlekar [in Phytotaxa 213(2): 155-158. 2015] merged this variety with var. nana having found no difference.
However, please look at the publication of Nerlekar (2015) as well as images of Jatropha nana in the EFI webpage. Here, in the typical variety, the capsules are broadly oblong while the fruits in var. bengalensis are suglobose. Hence I am maintaining this as a distinct variety on this fruit character as well as due to the disjunct distribution (var. nana in Maharashtra and var. bengalensis in West Bengal). My treatment will come out shortly.
Thanks … for this excellent post and addition…
Taking it as Jatropha nana Dalzell & Gibson, Bombay Fl. 229 1861. (syn: Jatropha nana var. bengalense C.H.Rahaman & S.Mondal) in view of discussions in another thread.
Euphorbiaceae week :: Jatropha nana: A less common plant but seen here in Pune on Vetal hills.
– ‘Jatropha nana’ is called ‘Kirkundi’ ‘किर्कुंडी’ in Marathi
– This plant is rarely seen in Mumbai & vicinity. This is a plant for future energy, seed oil is used in biofuel
EUPHORBIACEAE FORTNIGHT :: Jatropha nana Pune:: SMP 32 : 1 image. 2 posts by 2 authors.
Endemic species to Pune.
I have seen this growing only on Vetal Tekdi.
Excellent photo of this rare endemic.
Request for ID or validation : 4 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (5)- around 700 kb each.
Look like Jatropha glandulifera but the leaves didn’t matched with this as the posted species don’t have serrated leaves margin and also didn’t matched the leaves structure.
Place: Chilkigarh, Jhargram, WB
Date: 21 May 2020
Yes, it’s not glandulifera …, check with J.heynei,
Thanks …! ! Its may be the possibility although the leaves shape confusing me as per photograph https://sites.google.com/site/efloraofindia/species/a—l/e/euphorbiaceae/jatropha/jatropha-heynei
Status of J.NANA VAR. BENGALENSE : 1 post by 1 author.
with due respect, I would like to inform you my pleased for your recent comment on your eflora page on Jatropha nana var. bengalense. I am personally happy to know that you are taking this as a new variety which was earlier supported by Dr. N.P.Balakrishnan also (conversation over mail with me), after the publication of the Lectotype of the variety by A.Nerlekar.
Thanks a lot, eager to hear from you.
Pl. see … post at Jatropha nana var. bengalensis
I am marking a copy to …, who is the expert in this matter.
Please see the attached file in this regards.
Thanks for forwarding the mail. I am in fact very happy to see that we are pursuing a healthy discussion over here. I think its best to not be value laden when it comes to Science and the plants we work. I will set up the distinction once again and provide evidence against the distinction of the variety.
If J. nana var. bengalensis is to be maintained as a separate variety, we should expect that this variety has (according to the protologue):
1) to have ‘minute stipules’ (as opposed to long, filiform in the type variety)
2) to have tuberous roots (as opposed to finger-like roots in the type variety)
What I have been finding is that both these characters are abundantly common in the type species too. I have very clearly stated this in the paper (“Jatropha nana var. benghalensis was recently described as a distinct variety on the basis of stipule morphology and size of the root (Rahaman & Mondal 2012). Even though the protologue of the type variety mentions ‘stipules minute’, field examination of several specimens from the type locality (Pune) reveals that the stipules in J. nana are variable. Stipules were more prominent in early pheno-phases with 1 to 3 processes each (of 1.0–10 mm length). When the specimens were fully mature, stipules were minute or even absent. Similarly, with respect to root morphology, several specimens from the type locality were found to have tuberous main root (the largest was about 25 × 8 cm) (see figure 1). Both of these findings contradict the taxonomic status of J. nana var. benghalensis as a distinct variety. Hence, it is proposed that Jatropha nana var. benghalensis should be merged with the type variety, as the two characters considered as diagnostic for this variety by the authors are actually variable and also observed in specimens from the type locality”).
In support of my arguments, and in addition to the data and photos provided in the 2015 paper, I am attaching the photos of the tuberous root (certainly this is not finger-like, more like arm-like!) and the variable stipules.
About the capsule shape,
1) it was not mentioned in the protologue as a distinguishing character so I did not deal with it in the 2015 paper
2) Capsule shape is again, pretty variable and ranges from globose to ovate in the type variety too; see some more images that I had contributed at Flowersofindia (https://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Dwarf%20Jatropha.html). I will probably get even more images showing capsule and even seed size variation in the type variety.
About geographical distribution,
There are several examples of plants and animals that show disjuct distributions in India (for two examples, see:
http://eprints.iisc.ac.in/51883/1/Cur_Sci_108-10_1847_2015.pdf ). Having a disjunct distribution does not, in any biogeogrpahical sense confirm that a lineage has to be distinct.
I hope you find this set of evidence compelling at this point. Molecular phylogeny would be the best tool to resolve this group further (and I will be super happy to see evidence for and against my arguments-as I said, we should not be value laden and be objective).
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I am convinced with your arguments.
Please send me a copy of the full paper for my personal use.
I appreciate your response, and am glad that you find the evidence compelling. I stress here again, I am absolutely not ‘attached’ to the type variety, and will be the first one to say that I was wrong if somebody presents sufficient evidence. I think that is how science proceeds, and its heartening that we are discussing these things in the right spirit.
I have attached the paper and the erratum (pointing out some typographic errors, and not about the main points).
Flora of West Bengal, Vol. 4 has been published and released by BSI on 13th Feb. 2020. Here, the said variety has been cited as a synonym of the typical variety.
That’s great news!
I am the author of fam. Euphorb. sens. lat. in Fl. West Bengal. The complimentary copy is not yet in hand. Here is the extract:
Jatropha nana Dalzell & A.Gibson, Bombay Fl. [Dalzell & Gibson] 229. 1861; Nerlekar, Phytotaxa 213(2): 157. 2015. Jatropha nana Dalzell & A.Gibson var. bengalensis C.H.Rahaman & S.Mondal, Indian J. Forest. 35(4): 477. 2012 [Dec 2012], as ‘bengalense‘.
Fwd: Need information from you only : 1 post by 1 author.
I was acknowledged you because I found in your webpage (efloraofindia)
‘It may be mentioned that Nerlekar [in Phytotaxa 213(2): 155-158. 2015] merged this variety with var. nana having found no difference.
However, please look at the publication of Nerlekar (2015) as well as images of Jatropha nana in the EFI webpage. Here, in the typical variety, the capsules are broadly oblong while the fruits in var. bengalensis are suglobose. Hence I am maintaining this as a distinct variety on this fruit character as well as due to the disjunct distribution (var. nana in Maharashtra and var. bengalensis in West Bengal). My treatment will come out shortly.’
….. on that basis I found interest to communicate you personally, since I thought its your own opinion. To me still, it should keep in a varietal status (J.nana var. bengalense) since stipule characters may variable but we found typical paired stipules having 2-8 filiform branches of 1-11.5 mm (as compared with the 1-3 processes of upto 10mm length in J. nana var. nana: A.Nerlekar, 2015).
We, authors, after discussion and producing original specimen along with its photographs to respected Dr. T. Chakrabarty(BSI) and his Teacher, Dr.N.P. Balakrishnan and perusal of recent literature available on that Time( The Family Euphorbiaceae in India- A synopsis of its profile,taxonomy and bibliography, 2007) came to that conclusion to recognize it as a new variety. Here in this book of Euphorbiaceae, different species under the genus Jatropha have been keyed-out primarily on the basis of stipules present or absent (see key in this book mentioned).
Additionally we found, the tuberous main root is about 5-35cm (Mondal and Rahaman, 2015, New record of J. nana var. bengalense from Jharkhand, J.Non-Timber Forest Products,22:1) whereas Nerlekar(2015) mentioned that it is largest of 25cm. Nonetheless the disribution of J. nana var. bengalense, is LARGELY disjunct from the J.nana var. nana.
I appreciate the paper of …, its really a good work. But he could provide more clear photographs of Stipules and root in his paper, which are lacking.
Finally I think, it needs more scientific work to resolve it.