/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010981.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010973-5.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010969.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010975.jpg

 

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ixora_sp_P1010616.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ixora_sp_P1010613.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ixora_sp_P1010619.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ixora_sp_P1010618.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010984.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010985.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1010974.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ixora_sp_P1010615.jpg
 
Hooghly : Ixora polyantha Wight ??? : Attachments (5).  5 posts by 3 authors.

Found another plant somewhat similar to my earlier post – https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/indiantreepix/aeWdGDgGt8I.
But, this one –
  1. smaller than the earlier, a shrub
  2. corolla tube is smaller
  3. fairly scented, instead of highly scented
I think the length of the corolla tube conforms to the one specified in the FoP – http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=5&taxon_id=250090842
The photos were recorded on the 16th, this month, in a private garden.


This is probably Ixora chinensis var alba. Definitely not I. polyantha Wight


Thank you Sir. Can you please provide the ID keys to differentiate the two species?


I have recorded a few more photos today. It may not be I. polyantha. But it is neither I. chinensis var. alba, i think.
I couldn’t find any description of “alba” variety of I. chinensis. But, i hope, in “alba” the key characteristics should be same as I. chinensis.
A description of I. chinensis can be found in FoC and FoP, following features are missing in this species –
  • persistent stipules
  • calyx tube longer than lobes
  • maybe petiole of this species is a bit longer than the one described in FoC and FoP

 
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.