images by Surajit Koley 

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6708.jpg

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1120552.jpg

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6715.jpg

   


/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6716-2.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6731.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sagittaria%20sp.%201.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sagittaria%20sp.%203.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sagittaria%20sp.%205.jpg

 

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sagittaria%20sp.%204.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Sagittaria%20sp.%202.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6725.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6723.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6719.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6714-3.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6710.jpg

Sagittaria montevidensis Cham. & Schltdl. from Hooghly:  It is interesting to note that neither Bengal Plants nor FBI features this plant, or maybe, there is, hidden in another name! Also FoC and FoP do not have this.

Species : Sagittaria montevidensis Cham. & Schltdl.
H & H : aquatic herb in a ditch beside The Ganges
Date : 6/11/12, 1.23 p.m.
Place : Hooghly


yes its a inreresting plant in d sense of habit, stem n its flower is too preety!! its a new plant fo me.


Nice photographs ! In Maharashtra we have a species which is called Sagittaria guayensis sub-sp. lappula. Sending a few photographs. Not sure if yours is the same.


Thank you …, i also wanted to go for S. guayanensis, more so because both the Bengal Plant and FBI list it. But found that leaves are much smaller in the S. guayanensis, as per FoP & Hooker. My species has leaves about 1 foot long, if not more.


GRIN does show its range in India:
What about other sources ? or species as per efi site:
/species/a—l/a/alismataceae/sagittaria


My claims are based upon leaf size, plant height, comparison of images available in the net. I could not found much description and used the following links :-
Hooghly : Sagittaria montevidensis Cham. & Schltdl. ? : 5 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (6)
Lamina of this plant is about 1 ft, found today (8.11.14) in a lowland near Uttarpara. The problem is S. montevidensis is present in West Bengal, but according to the linked pdf the flowering time is Feb-March, though in US it is Jul-Oct.


just a joke: your plant perhaps thinks its a probashi bangali in aamerika instead of in uttarpara…
seriously though:
as more and folks take pictures and note down info, i ‘m sure we will discover a lot more about our own plants and animals then did that survey of a small restricted area of past jamindar’s land where he had planted many “foreign” plants…

have you found ref that this was found in other areas or in earlier times?
on the other hand who is to say this is really a local plant? and not a true probashi markin?  planted by the jamindar?


Didi, I have earlier record from a place about 10 km away from the site I have found yesterday, but the id is pending. There is another report of its occurrence in India, perhaps in Bengal as guessed by authors’ names, entry at number 10 at http://www.iaat.org.in/rheedea9.html.


 

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160785.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160787.jpg

 

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160797.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160794.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160793.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160789.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160782.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1160779.jpg
3 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (8)
This was my third record, on 12-Sept-2015, of this species in Hooghly district. Each time at a different place. BSI checklist recognise only 4 spp. of which we should have 2 spp in West Bengal. I have records and threads of those two species. But this species though looks somewhat like S. trifolia L. is much stouter as can be guessed from the first two pictures.
Since flowers are unisexual (here those are male flowers, female flowers can be seen in my earlier thread) so the species should be Sagittaria sp.

BSI checklist may not recognise its presence in India but it has been recorded in WB. Earlier from Nadia district (please check the link in my earlier thread) and also recently in Howrah District (though in different context, authors inform materials deposited in CNH, Cal., can’t say if it was after or before identification).
So, this must be S. montevidensis Cham. & Schltdl.


Thanks for beautful pics …


 
 
 
 
References:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.