Pedicularis hookeriana Wall., Scroph. Ind. 53 1835. (Syn: Pedicularis himalaica Klotzsch);



Yet another discussion on Pedicularis! ABAUG2017/12 : 3 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (15)
The long-tube pedicularis species, which is very common here above 3000m, has confused me. I have followed the excellent discussion between Dr Singh, Tabish ji and other senior members and have at times concluded that the plants here are P. siphonantha but another doubt nags me and I start looking at the characteristics again.
Looking at the sketch uploaded by … here, I would say that flowers of our plants are closer to P. punctata than P. siphonantha (tube length and its ratio with the calyx). I have included a photo of our flower (without calyx) on a ruler for comparison below. Accounting for the absence of calyx in the photograph, the tube length matches with figure A and so does the shape of the galea.

However, the lower lip on our flower is narrow (about 7-8mm) while P. punctata should have a broader, 15mm, lower lip.
The number of lobes on the lower leaves is higher than 6 (see photo). The petiole is long and not winged. This would suggest not P. punctata again.
… had suggested P. hookeriana which was described briefly by Kletter and Kriechbaum here in their 2001 discussion of P. punctata but it was concluded that since the drawing in the 2009 paper shows shorter tube length, P. hookeriana was not a possibility. But the tube length of P. siphonantha in the drawing does not match our sample either.
Most of the images of P. siphonantha available online show a higher ratio of tube-length to calyx than our flowers here.
Our plant is gregarious at 3200m with many clumps of flowers. I have tried to include photos to show that.
I would request my seniors to look at this species again and advise. I am at a loss as to which source takes precedence. I apologise for requesting to open this discussion yet again and hope that you will find merit in doing so.

Thanks, … 

I think one of the most confusing genus.

Going by the hairiness of corolla & upto 6 number of pinnae pairs of basal leaves as per the keys and details at Critical Taxonomic Appraisal of Some Taxa of Pedicularis from Indian Himalayas Belonging to Section Siphonanthae by Arti Garg (2009) (pdf), I feel it may be more closer to Pedicularis punctata Decne.

If you have dissected the flower and compared characters then you might be right in your conclusion as Pedicularis flowers are often deceptive in identification merely by photographs.



Thank you … for pulling these Pedicularis species out for renewed discussion. Please convey my thanks to … for her expert comments. I will revisit my files and attempt a better understanding.

I have again been looking at this species. Going through Yamazaki (A Revision of the Genus Pedicularis in Nepal, 1988), Pennel (The Scrophulariaceae of the Western Himalayas, 1944) and Arti Garg (Critical Taxonomic Appraisal of Some Taxa of Pedicularis from Indian Himalayas Belonging to Section Siphonanthae , 2009) I have reached the conclusion that the plant here is Pedicularis hookeriana.
Here is why:
1. The corolla-tube is roughly three times the length of the calyx (Pennell: ‘distinguished from P. siphonantha Don by the corolla-tube being hardly three, instead of four times the length of the calyx’). I am attaching a new photo to show that.
2. Lower leaves long with more than 6 lobes (Yamazaki: leaves 1.5-7cm for hookeriana vs. 1-4cm for P. siphonantha; Pennell: Pinnae of leaf blades 6-12 pairs). The earlier photo of me holding a basal leaf shows the size and number of pinnae corresponding clearly to hookeriana)
3. Toothed galea (Pennell: ‘anterior lobe acutely triangular-toothed on the anterior margins). See the attached photo.
Also the filaments are hairy on one pair of stamens on the upper parts only (Arti Garg:anterior pair hairy, hairs confined to upper half, posterior pair glabrous’).
Apart from this, the size of the lower lip (with three lobes), presence of hair on the tube, lower lip and on the galea (upper lip) all point to P. hookeriana. The geographical distribution is also correct with the altitude (our plants are found around 3100m and slightly above).
Some studies have shown that both P. hookeriana and P. punctata belong to the P. siphonantha clade and experts may not consider these two as separate species in the future. But till then I am filing this under P. hookeriana.
My earlier email under Pedicularis sp. ABSEP2016/21 is also the same.
Attachments (3)

Thanks, …, I agree with your id as P. hookeriana

Thank you very much … I started on an email on P. pectinata a couple of weeks ago but while writing it had doubts again. I am still working on it and hoping to understand it soon.


Pedicularis sp. ABSEP2016/21 : 10 posts by 3 authors. 4 images.

I cannot place this Pedicularis which I photographed on my walk back above Ilaqa. P. siphonantha perhaps? Please advise.
Above Ilaqa, HP 3200m 03-04 September 2016

efi page on Pedicularis siphonantha  

Pedicularis siphonantha D. Don

Thank you … Isn’t the corolla tube hairless in S. siphonantha? Please share what features you use to differentiate this species.

Corolla tube finely pubescent; galea strongly twisted and white part in the flower is my observation. And leaves looks matching.

Some additional photos of the calyx and the lower leaves to help with the ID. I took these yesterday from the same plant as before.
3 images.

Thanks, …, for id as P. hookeriana as per your feedback in another thread: Yet another discussion on Pedicularis! ABAUG2017/12  

Leave a Reply

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