Image by DS Rawat

Gentiana tubiflora (Gentianaceae) from Uttarakhand: Sep. 2014_DSR_27: 2 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (1).

Gentiana tubiflora (Gentianaceae) photographed from Bhagwabas area (Chamoli) in Uttarakhand. 4500m altitude. 

This has been correctly identified. The species is found in ‘The Valley of Flowers’ according to the book of that name (i.e. above the main valley which is most visited these days and assigned the title) as not recorded below 4000m. I am about to post an image of this gentian taken on the Rohtang Pass in HP.


Fwd: Gentiana tubiflora : 1 post by 1 author. Attachments (1)

Further to my recent posts pointing out that the gentians photographed near to the Hampta Pass in HP were definitely not Gentiana tubiflora and that … image from Uttarakhand was this species, I am posting an image I took on the Rohtang Pass (which is not far from Hampta) a few years ago to help clarify the situation – I am sure if the images are compared, members will agree that these are different species altogether.
Gentiana tubiflora is not recorded from Pakistan or Kashmir. The first time I saw it was on the Rohtang. It, like Primula reptans, were much more common (the latter species still abundant in the mid-1980s when I led two tours of European plant enthusiasts on treks up the Miyah Nullah, Lahoul, stopping off briefly on the Rohtang).  Sadly, the top of the Rohtang is now trampled by vast numbers of tourists (not foreigners
as their numbers are small) in search of snow including those taking pony rides when weather and season permits.  During the winter there is a protective layer of snow.
Anyhow, this colony is more or less the most NWesterly of its distribution. It is primarily an Eastern Himalayan species recorded from HP through to SE Tibet on screes and open slopes @ 4-5000m.
Note the example I photographed was growing on a steep ‘peaty’ bank amongst Primula reptans.
In Sikkim & Bhutan it is found on open grassy hillsides and scree @ 4420-5040m. 
This species is included, incorrectly, within ‘Flora of Lahaul-Spiti’ as the record comes from the top of the Rohtang with is part of Kulu. It is not a Tibetan borderland species as such and would not be expected from Ladakh or Lahoul (though might just survive in the wettest places in these districts).  I repeat, including records from the Rohtang (which is readily accessible) at the expense of exploring in Lahoul and Spiti, is misleading. The number of records within this flora is thus artificially high. which is misleading. Records of plants clearly growing on the Lahoul-side of the Rohtang, such as above Koksar are valid but the terrain gets exceedingly steep, so which species are at the higher altitudes in these areas is poorly known – though this applies to all high-altitude species, which tend to only be spotted very close to main passes only.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *