Senecio krascheninnikovii Schischk., Not. Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. Acad. Sci. URSS, xv. 410 (1953). (Syn: Senecio hindukushensis Kitam.; Senecio kashmirianus N.P.Balakr.; Senecio krascheninnikovii var. krascheninnikovii ; Senecio pedunculatus Edgew.; Senecio pedunculatus var. pedunculatus ; Senecio pedunculus Edgew.);
Common name: Hindukush Senecio
Asteraceae Week (Part I – Radiate heads) ::Senecio dubitabilis?? at Ladakh :: PKA31:: : Attachments (3). 4 posts by 3 authors.
Seen this small herb with very small flowers at Diskit, Ladakh.
Date/Time: 18-09-2011 / 09:00AM
Location: Diskit Village, Nubra valley, Ladakh.
Plant Habit: Herb.
During earlier discussion the probable ID given by … was Senecio dubitabilis.
Not Senecio dubitabilis which is almost similar to S. vulgaris with no ray florets.
Yes it is not Senecio dubitabilis. thanks to respected … for necessary guideline. It resembles somewhat to Senecio disfauntanie. but not sure.
I am in agreement that the plant is not Senecio dubitalis (which is recorded for Ladakh) – Stewart, who knew it as S.dubius described it as a dwarf, uninteresting Tibetan annual found to 5700m.
As Google images of this species: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Senecio+dubitabilis%22&tbm=isch&gws_rd=ssl
show, … was correct in pointing out it has no ray florets, so can be eliminated from consideration.
I am not familiar with S.desfontanei, suggested by the late Krishan Lal, nor have seen any photos or specimens. It is recorded from Ladakh.
However, a strong possibility is of S.krascheninnikovia – the images come close to those on the FOI site. Stewart described it as a very common, annual, small flowered weedy species. Klimes found it in mesic to dry open disturbed habitats, non-saline, waste sites in villages, field margins, gardens, weed in fields and along roads.
Kew herbarium image of S.krascheninnikovia collected by Jacquemont
ID request-241111-PKA1: Seen this small herb with very small flowers at Diskit, ladakh.
I hope Senecio pedunculatus
Perhaps It should be Senecio dubitabilis.
Not Senecio dubitabilis as per reply in another thread.
“Not Senecio dubitabilis which is almost similar to S. vulgaris with no ray florets.”