Gentianopsis stricta (Klotzsch) Ikonn., Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 6: 270 1970. (syn: Gentiana stricta Klotzsch; Gentiana vvedenskyi Grossh.; Gentianella vvedenskyi (Grossh.) H. Smith; Gentianopsis stricta (Klotzsch) Holub (ambiguous synonym); Gentianopsis vvedenskyi (Grossh.) V.V. Pis’yaukova);
C-Asia, Tadjikistan, Mongolia, Turkestan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Pakistani Kashmir
(Karakorum, Baltistan, Deosai, Gilgit
as per Catalogue of Life;




Gentianopsis paludosa (Munro ex J. D. Hooker) : 6 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (5)
Sharing some pictures I guess is Gentianopsis paludosa (Munro ex J. D. Hooker) shot at Kahrdung Village on 21 August 2014.

I am in agreement that this plant appears to be within what is now called the Gentianopsis genus. There are 2 species recorded from Ladakh.
The Gentian family (Gentianaceae) has undergone a lot of nomenclatural and taxonomic changes in recent decades and quite a number can be difficult to identify with certainty.
In my early days of exploring for plants in the Himalaya, my teams collected pressed specimens, which e.g. staff at Kew identified (e.g. a duplicate set of pressed specimens was also deposited in the herbarium of the University of Kashmir). Later on, Eona Aitken a taxonomist specialising in Gentianaceae helped with naming but she is no longer at Edinburgh – always a pity when one losses knowledgeable specialists.
On my first expedition to Suru Valley, we collected at Kargil and Panichar, specimens which were named at that time as Gentianella paludosa. Stewart in his catalogue called this Gentiana stracheyi with synonyms Gentiana detonsa var. stracheyi and Gentiana detonsa var. paludosa.  Nowadays it is known as Gentianopsis paludosa.  My present understanding is that this is the commonest species of this genus in Ladakh – mostly on and close to irrigation channels of fields – though ‘Flowers of the Himalaya’ also say it is found on open slopes and alpine shrubberies (in other parts of the Himalaya).
But in Ladakh there is also Gentianopsis vvedenskyi (syn. Gentianella vvedenskyi, Gentiana stricta). Stewart comments that this has been much confused with what is now Gentianopsis paludosa.
He separated the former species having narrower, more acuminate leaves with less winged calyces. The specimen we collected had prominent fringed petals.
My 1980 team also came across what is now Gentianopsis vvdenenskyi in the Suru Valley (at Rangdum) – its sepals had 5 dark stripes down each lobe but I do not know if this is characteristic of all variants of this species?  Comparing the two, this example of the species appeared more delicate than the examples of G. paludosa.
I am no expert on Gentianaceae. My initial thoughts are that the plants photographed by Prashant at Turtuk in Ladakh do come with Gentianopsis paludosa. As for the plants photographed at Khardung Village by Saroj, I wonder if these might be Gentianopsis vvedenskyi but am uncertain?  They do not have the dark stripes on the calyx lobes but do exhibit narrow leaves and prominent fringed petals but do not know how diagnostic these features are?
Would be pleased if those with greater knowledge than me can comment.  What shame I am not in a position to consult Eona.

Thanks, … After going through the images at,
I agree with your ID of Gentianopsis vvdenskyi

Further both Catalogue of Life  The Plant List Ver.1.1 now consider that Gentianopsis vvedenskyi (Grossh.) Pissjauk. is a synonym of Gentianopsis stricta (Klotzsch) Ikonn.
Pl. also see specimen as below from GBIF:
I think all these confirm the Id.

So the accepted name is Gentianopsis stricta and rest are synonyms.

Thanks for up-date. Interesting.
I note specimen 1 was determined as G.stricta by E.Aitken the Gentianceae specialist at Edinburgh I mentioned previously.  Specimen collected in Ladakh by Walter Koelz, a University of Michigan zoologist hired by the strange Russian Nicholas Roerich to collect specimens in the 1930s. He also collected for USDA.  Collected jointly with Thakur Rup Chand from the leading family in Lahoul (who settled in the US).  It is a great pity that the duplicate set of specimens they
collected which were deposited at the Urusvati Institute at Naggar, Kulu Valley, have languished there since the 1930s!  I tried a number of times to get to inspect what remains of thousands of these pressed specimens – what a waste, no doubt some lost to mould and insects but presumably others may be OK?
Dr Stewart, whom I regularly refer to, retired aged 70, from his post as Principal of Gordon College, Rawalpindi, leaving a large private herbarium at the college to become Pakistan’s National Herbarium. He was recruited by the Curator of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Herbarium to identify, label and have mounted tends of thousands of pressed specimens accumulated by Koelz & Chand (mostly) in Lahoul, Ladak, Kulu Valley and other districts, mostly in the 1930s.  This Stewart managed (with the help of specialists) over a 20 year period (I think funds were made available through the USDA for him to be a Research Associate) this and was able to compile his excellent ‘An Annotated Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Pakistan & Kashmir’ which I refer to a lot.   Then the ‘Flora of Pakistan’ Project began, initially supervised by former students of Stewart, producing family-by-family revisions.
Shame no funds available for me to do something similar for the Western Himalaya or at least on Ladakh… I currently have the time available and have accumulated much knowledge.
Anyhow, returning to Gentians.  I note that Stewart listed Gentiana stricta Klotzsch (syn. G.detonsa Clarke) from N.Pakistan & Baltistan but not Ladakh. Dickore & Klimes do not list G.stricta in their more up-to-date check-list (but this does not always tally with Stewart).
This is the first time I have seen digitised specimens from Edinburgh – so shall check this source out regularly. A long way to travel to the herbarium there in Scotland.  I live not that far from  Kew and the Natural History Museum Herbaria (both about an hour or so by train and underground) but do not have funds available to consult specimens there – which would be helpful sometimes.  Clearly, Kew has only digitised some of the 7 million odd specimens and being able to inspect and look at closely with a hand lens or binocular microscope, if necessary, is more informative than the low resolution Kew images.  Also, often the out-of-date names are used from specimens, so tracking down the specimens can be difficult.  The Natural History Museum herbarium has better specimens of quite a lot of Himalayan species and being a much smaller herbarium means one can cover more ground/consult more specimens per hour there.
As I say, sympathise with those who find all these nomenclatural/ taxonomic changes hard to take!



Leave a Reply

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