Dactylorhiza umbrosa (Kar. & Kir.) Nevski, Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Ser. 1, Fl. Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 4: 332 1937. (Syn: Dactylorchis sanasunitensis Soó; Dactylorchis umbrosa (Kar. & Kir.) Wendelbo; Dactylorhiza chuhensis Renz & Taubenheim; Dactylorhiza incarnata subsp. turcestanica (Klinge) H.Sund.; Dactylorhiza knorringiana (Kraenzl.) Ikonn.; Dactylorhiza kotschyi (Rchb.f.) P.F.Hunt & Summerh.; Dactylorhiza merovensis (Grossh.) Aver.; Dactylorhiza persica (Schltr.) Soó; Dactylorhiza renzii Aver. [Illegitimate]; Dactylorhiza sanasunitensis (H.Fleischm.) Soó; Dactylorhiza umbrosa var. afghanica (Soó) Soó ……; Dactylorhiza vanensis E.Nelson; Orchis hatagirea var. afghanica Soó; Orchis incarnata var. knorringiana Kraenzl. …; Orchis knorringiana (Kraenzl.) Czerniak.; Orchis kotschyi (Rchb.f.) Schltr.; Orchis merovensis Grossh.; Orchis olocheilos var. sanasunitensis (H.Fleischm.) Soó; Orchis orientalis subsp. turcestanica Klinge; Orchis persica Schltr.; Orchis sanasunitensis H.Fleischm.; Orchis turkestanica (Klinge) Klinge ex B.Fedtsch.; Orchis umbrosa Kar. & Kir.);

I am currently preparing a posting about New Records for Ladakh found during the University of Southampton Expedition to Ladakh in 1980 when I was team-leading of the botanical project which was a botanical survey of the Suru Valley.
We collected a Marsh Orchid: Dactylorhiza umbrosa (Kar. et Kir.) our collection number  SULE 16 – which was deposited in the herbarium of the University of Kashmir. This was 32 years before 2012…  According to the article it represents an ADDITION TO THE FLORA OF INDIA….
Duplicate specimens went to Kew; triplicate specimens to University of Southampton.
See: Link (Dactylorhiza_umbrosa_Kar_Kir_Nevski_Orchidaceae_an_addition_to_flora_of_India_from_Kashmir_Himalaya) 
My team collected this at Panichar, 3300m, grassy verge between Chalang Nullah and irrigation channel; wet sandy loam in marshy area with Trifolium, Euphrasia, grasses. To 35cm, deep mauve with purple markings on lower petals; occasionally white forms. 
I noted in the Report of the Expedition that Dactylorhiza umbrosa was considered by some authors to be only part of the Dactylorhiza hatagirea complex. 
Stewart in his Annotated Catalogue lists both D.hatagirea and D.umbrosa (collected in Chitral) observing it was probably distinct but part of the D.hatagirea complex.
In my recent postings about Dactylorhiza I had assumed our 1980 collection was part of this complex but as D.umbrosa appears to be
an accepted name and the specimens were identified at Kew one presumably can trust their determination.
Thus, it appears, my team found this orchid for the first time in Indian territory back in 1980.
I would naturally welcome the thoughts of our orchid specialist.

I have already seen this article before and it is not surprising that the plant in Saphoo et al (2016) is wrongly identified and it is infact Dactylorhiza hatagirea. Very peculiar labellum.
I have not seen the Dactylorhiza umbrosa myself but if it is in Pakistan (Chitral) till Iraq, then obviously not a big deal if it can be found in India, but so far I have not seen the live plants myself. At one point I also thought that umbrosa and hatagirea should be same as hatagirea is very widespread and even found at broad elevation range. But as I never had specimen I was unable to conclude.
Orchids of Russia – Vakhrameeva et al. (2008) did ntt include Pakistan as the distribution range for this, but Orchids of Northwest Himalaya – Deva and Naithani (1986) included. 
I have not see your pics but would love to have a look.

Just wanted to add one more thing. I couldnt find any collection of D. umbrosa from Kashmir at Kew’s Herbarium Catalogue.

So thats the problem with research, every one doesn’t have access to every reference at a given point, so people tend to miss. You took the specimen to UK, but may be if you had left  one specimen at Dehradun. your finding could have appeared in the Orchids of NW Himalaya.

I replied to your second e-mail first.
So you consider the plants found at Krishensar Lake are probably D.hatagirea rather than D.umbrosa.
I suspect with such a difficult genus, there is scope for differences of taxonomic treatment/ opinion even amongst those with specialist knowledge.  For others, there is MUCH potential for misidentification and confusion.  ALL botanists, in ALL countries, really SHOULD contact specialists (when they exist) for their opinions.  I realise not all those with specialist knowledge are bothered to help and the authorities in SOME countries can DISCOURAGE contact between Institutions within those countries, let alone abroad.  This is a SERIOUS problem.
Unfortunately, I did not have a camera capable of taking plants photos in 1980, so personally have no images of the specimens collected in Ladakh that year.  I have not been in touch with the person on my team who did take some photos (do not know if that included the orchid but would think so) since then!  The priority was gathering quality specimens and detailed field notes – NOT photographs at that time.
No idea how to contact them nowadays – being a female, she probably married and goes by her husband’s surname…..  She had a common Christian and Surname, so this makes it even harder.
I would certainly be delighted IF I can re-establish contact and find it of interest/use to view scanned in images of ALL specimens collected during the University Expedition –  with a view to posting these to add further species to the efI data-base.
It could also be that staff at Kew have revised their determination of the sheet (or visiting orchid specialists have), ‘relegating’ it to D.hatagirea?
It is worth repeating Dr Stewart’s comments about D.hatagirea, “After going through the rich material of this taxon at Kew with Mr Peter Hunt
(presumably Kew’s Orchid specialist at the time) we came to the conclusion that this is a variable complex and that Soo’s segregates could not be maintained”.
I suspect also, that unless photos show close-up detail of the floral parts, it may not always be possible for you (or anyone else) to say
with CERTAINTY whether the plant photographed belongs to a particular taxon.

Can you please confirm if you had already identified the plant as Dactylorhiza umbrosa before submitting to KASH? I mean, was it labelled as umbrosa before submission?

Leave a Reply

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