Hedyotis kurzii Merr., Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 19: 195 1933 publ. 1934. (Syn: Hedyotis nicobarensis W.H.Lewis [Illegitimate]; Hedyotis wallichii Kurz [Illegitimate]; Oldenlandia rosea Ridl.; Oldenlandia wallichii Craib);

SW. India, Indo-China to Pen. Malaysia, Borneo as per WCSP;

Andaman Is.; Borneo; India; Malaya; Myanmar; Nicobar Is.; Thailand; Vietnam as per Catalogue of Life;


/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IMG_4717.jpg

 

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IMG_4714.jpg
ID request- 17092012-PKA1 : Attachments (12). 9 posts by 6 authors.
Came across this small herb en-route Prabal-Matheran Valley.
Flower size was very small, approx. 1.5 to 2mm across, whitish-pink in colour..
Date/Time: 16-09-2012 / 12:45PM, 03:30PM.
Location: Prabal-Matheran Valley, Chowk region, Maharashtra.
Habitat: Wild,
Plant habit: herb
.

May be Oldenlandia paniculata (Hedyotis paniculata)


I think that this could be a species of Oldenlandia of Rubiaceae family


From another thread:

I am not sure of the this post, for corolla tube doesn’t seem to be short to me. The following links may help –


As per F. B. I. iii. 69., for O. paniculata L. –

  • (leaf) nerves indistinct
  • cymes in the upper axils, short, 3 to 8 flowered
  • (branches) succulent
  • flowers minute, white
  • corolla tube short (under subgen. III)
I am not telling that this is not O. paniculata, the only thing i would like to convey is that i think my plant is different to this one.


I have found this same plant today at Matheran.
Looking at the links posted above for Oldenlandia biflora I feel this is a different plant.
It is likely to be O. paniculata.
According to Dr Almeida O. paniculata and O. biflora are not exactly the same. See Fl. of Mah. vol 3, p.44.
I also noticed that my plant has leaves with tiny hairs on the margins and on the nerves below whereas O. biflora is supposed to have glabrous leaves.


Thanks, …, for your important views. However, the following links treat Oldenlandia paniculata L. as a syn. of Oldenlandia biflora L. :

Flora of China (Hedyotis biflora (Linnaeus) Lamarck (syn: Oldenlandia biflora Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 119. 1753; Hedyotis paniculata (Linnaeus) Lamarck; H. racemosa Lamarck; O. crassifolia Candolle; O. paniculata Linnaeus) says:
The circumscription and name of this species is controversial or, at best, complicated. These are small herbs of ruderal sites and thus probably respond markedly to local conditions, in particular growing to a larger size with larger leaves, inflorescences, and fruit in sites with better conditions. Similar species that have been variously synonymized but are separated here include Hedyotis strigulosa and H. pterita; see further discussion under H. strigulosa. Alternatively Biju et al. (Rheedea 2(1): 11-18. 1992) separated H. biflora from H. racemosa (syn. Oldenlandia paniculata); their treatment is carefully done but regional, and because their key does not correspond well with the Chinese plants, their conclusions are not accepted here.


I think this appears to be Hedyotis kurzii as per GBIF (high resolution specimens) and publication
While this plant was posted way back in 2012.
Pl. see

You may well be right. I am quite confused.
Do we have authentic photographs of Oldenlandia biflora ? The description in Flora of China allows for regional variation as you mentioned earlier.
The plant posted by … is common in the Matheran range as well as in other locations around Mumbai. I have been seeing it for years so I’m surprised that a new record paper for India has appeared only in 2015 and that it mentions only Kerala and Karnataka. Has the Mumbai plant been misidentified all this time? I searched for photos of living specimens without success.
Attaching a few images of what I take to be the same plant taken today in Tungareshwar.


GBIF (high resolution images) FOC illustration  Plant illustrations  Nature Loves you 


Thank you …,

For me the evidence is not quite conclusive!  In such a case one would need to examine live plant specimens.
By the way, one set of images of Leptopetalum biflorum in eflora includes 2 different species. 
In the description of the same plant from India Biodiversity Portal the leaves are said to be puberulous. The leaves of the plant I photographed are definitely not glabrous. I’m not sure about … plant. In the description of Hedyotis kurzii from the Rheedea article the leaves are said to be glabrous. 

It’s not that these characters can decide either way, just that regional and site variation in one species can account for a lot!
Your persistence is quite admirable. 


Regarding your comment ‘By the way, one set of images of Leptopetalum biflorum in eflora includes 2 different species’, I checked images at Leptopetalum biflorum, but I did not find any discrepancy.
Pl. clarify.


I think you are right. 


Leave a Reply

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