Piper peepuloides

  • admin_jmgarg
  • Piper
Piper peepuloides Roxb., Fl. Ind. 1: 159 1820. (syn: Chavica neesiana Miq.; Chavica peepuloides (Roxb.) Miq.);
.
Bhutan, Sikkim, India (Darjeeling), Myanmar [Burma] (Chin), Nepal, Assam, Bangladesh as per Catalogue of Life;
.
Common name: Wild Pepper, Pipli Pepper • Adi: Rari
.

Similar to P.mullesua but leaves on aerial branches tapering to a round, shallowly cordate, usually oblique base, prominently 5-veined in basal 5-10mm, but without lateral veins above; petioles 3-10mm; axillary buds inconspicuous, minute; female spikes shortly cylindric, rarely subglobose, in fruit 6-15 x 5-6mm, on very short peduncles 1-4mm; drupes 1mm.

Fl. November-December
Subtropical forests.
(Attributions- A.C.J Grierson & D.G Long. Flora of Bhutan. Published by RBGE. 1984 as per Bhutan Biodiversity Portal) 
.
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Piper-1.JPG
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC00990.JPG
This one is a “Piper” Var (Piperaceae Family) photographed at “Sohra Forest– Meghalaya”.
My guess is Piper Cubeba??. Your comments please..

Possibly a Piper longum. How long was the pepper ‘pod’? But an interesting Piper.

I am bit confused between Piper cubeba and Piper longum. Have a look at following link.

http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/p/pepe%20cubebe.htm
The spikes were variable from around 1cm to 4cm roughly.
Have a look at one more photo (not very clear).

My identification was based on what was available in google search.
One key identification was the ‘tail’, which was missing in the picture.
But when you sent in the link, then I got confused.
I feel that Piper longum has a longer ‘pod’ than Piper cubeba.
Additional information is needed before this variety is confirmed.
I do have a question though: Again based on google search, its geographical distribution is south east asia. Though our North Eastern region can be considered as a continuum of the South East Asian bio-geographical zone (roughly speaking), is Piper cubeba found in North EAst? One interenet search stated that Mysore was the location of the photograph!
Perhaps the experts in this group can throw some light on this.
Thanks for posting this, it has opened up a whole new world of Pipers!! Such incredible variety.

Realy it is very interesting. I have no idea of distribution of piper, whether it is rare or occassional ?

it is Piper cubeba

Leaves of P. longum are much different: broader and cordate at base. This could be P. cubeba

‘Piper Cubeba’ is called ‘Kankol’ ‘कंकोळ’ in Marathi.

Piper cubeba L.fil. is not found in India as per Catalogue of Life;
Can it be Piper khasianum C.DC. (syn: Piper curtistipes C.DC.) as per GBIF Specimen ?
A reply from another thread from Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee for this post:
Piper peepulloides.

It should be a male plant as per GBIF– Specimen

This 2016 paper treats Piper mullesua Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don (1825, p. 20) as synonym of Piper peepuloides Roxb.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307099058_ Taxonomic_notes_on_the_genus_Piper_Piperaceae
The description of Piper mullesua at FOC mentions flowers are bisexual and spikes are almost spherical. Notes in the FOC description also talk about that species being wrongly described as having long male inflorescence.
My understanding from all this is that Piper peepuloides has small spikes which are bisexual.
Any clarification is welcome.
Thanks, … There has been a lot of confusion about the long spike of male plants in Piper peepulloides.
As the id comes from Dr. Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee, there should not be any doubt about it.
As per his recent publication, Nomenclatural notes on Piper (Piperaceae) from India III (2020)
Abstract: This paper, in continuation of earlier ones (Mukherjee 2017, 2018), deals with the taxonomic studies of the genus Piper Linnaeus (Piperaceae) from India. It includes information on the identity, typification and nomenclature of ten additional species. The results report four new names: Piper courtallensis P. K. Mukh. nom. nov., Piper kurgianum P. K. Mukh. nom.nov, Piper lamarckianum P. K. Mukh. nom. nov., and Piper travancorianum P. K. Mukh. nom. nov. It also deals with the lectotypification and nomenclature of P. argyrophyllum Miquel, P. attenuatum Miquel and P. talbotii C. de Candolle in addition to supersession of previous lectotypification with new ones for P. leptostachyum Miquel and P. peepuloides Roxburgh. Additionally, new synonyms are added for P. obtusistigmum C.de Candolle and P. talbotii C. de Candolle. Identities of P. peepuloides Roxburgh, P. mullesua Don and P. rhytidocarpum J. D. Hooker as distinct species are reasserted. An overall evaluation of their identity and nomenclature including synonyms is included. Necessary explanatory notes are added for each of the species which are dealt alphabetically.
He has considered Suwanpakhdee’s 2016 publication in this.
It says Piper mullesua is considered here as distinct from P. peepuloides because it differs in the characters of the female spikes. These are long pedicelled and spherical to ovoid in P. mullesua and subsessile and cylindrical in P. peepuloides.

Since this is the latest paper, it settles the name confusion, and it also considers the paper I had pointed to. Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee would know the identity of this plant well, I am sure. So, I take it as Piper peepuloides.

Probably a male plant of P. khasianum C. D.

Thanks a lot, … … suggested it as Piper peepulloides.
Any views ?

Yes it could be

Nepali Name : बन पिप्ला  Ban Piplaa 

.

Piper cubeba in FOI : 16 posts by 3 authors.
Images of Piper cubeba in FOI by … may be of some other species as Piper cubeba L.fil. is not found in India as per Catalogue of Life;
Can it be Piper khasianum C.DC. (syn: Piper curtistipes C.DC.) as per GBIF Specimen ?

It is not seen anywhere in the following publications on Piper Species in India:

Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India – PRASANTA KUMAR MUKHERJEE- Phytotaxa 289 (2): 188–192, 2017
Abstract More than a century ago, the comprehensive account of the Piperaceae in the Flora of British India by Hooker (1886) listed 45 species of Piper (including Pothomorphe) and ten species of Peperomia from India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka as well as the Indonesian islands Java and Sumatra. The genus Piper was treated under six sections, wherein he listed 28 species from present day India. Several years later, C. de Candolle (1923) recognized 95 species of Piper and eight of Peperomia from India, including 41 species of Piper that were new, although they were not described fully until 1925. A number of new species and varieties were also added by Van Heurck & Müller Argoviensis (1871), C. de Candolle (1910, 1912), Gamble (1924), Ravindran et al. (1987), Babu et al. (1993), Gajurel et al. (2001 a & b, 2007), Lekhak et al. (2012), and Mathew et al. (2016). In the meantime, some regional accounts of the genus Piper were also published, including Rahiman & Nair (1987) from Karnataka, Gajurel et al. (2002, 2008) from Arunachal Pradesh, and Das et al. (2010) from Terai Duars, Darjeeling, and Sikkim. Long (1984) published an account of Piperaceae from Bhutan that included records from Sikkim, wherein he suggested some new synonyms. A critical examination of these publications points to their limitations concerning some of the identities and nomenclature.
Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India II – PRASANTA KUMAR MUKHERJEE- Phytotaxa 338 (1): 017–032, 2018
Abstract In continuation of the taxonomic study of the genus Piper from India (Mukherjee, 2017), eighty-four Piper names, reported from India, are considered here for their typification, identity, and nomenclature. The scrutiny led to the recognition of twenty-four species. Thirty-five synonyms are proposed as new ones out of sixty-one treated here. Lectotypes are designated for almost all the species recognised here together with their synonyms or basionyms. Holotypes are mentioned when applicable. Of particular mention are P. hookeri and P. sylvaticum with confused identities and lacking proper typification. Corrections are suggested to earlier lectotypifications for P. hymenophyllum and P. rhytidocarpum. Extension of distribution to India from Myanmar are recorded for three species: P. acutistigmum, P. leptostachyum and P. pothoides.

Are this links  reliable?

By the way can we rely on IBP where it is mentioned?

Reliable document on published documents I have given you …

Just my opinion as found in the Net ! Basically I have not much knowledge about Indian flora distribution ! But many sources says it is cultivated in India !

But the … posted plant is wild.

Could be something else. But it doesn’t look like Piper khasianum because in P. khasianum leaves are 6-10 cm long, and flower spikes are much shorter, 2-3 cm. In … plant the spikes look as long as the leaves.

A reply from another thread from Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee for this image: Piper peepulloides.

Although Piper peepuloides is found in Khasi hills, its flower spikes look very different. See a sketch from a paper.

It should be a male plant as per GBIF– Specimen

Thank you …, The male spikes do appear to be of the size of spikes of … plant! Good investigation!

Please point to a description of Piper peepuloides, if you find it.

 

 

 

.

References:
Catalogue of Life  The Plant List Ver.1.1  POWO  GBIF– Specimen (High resolution specimens) Annotated checklist of Flowering plants of Nepal  India Biodiversity Portal  Bhutan Biodiversity Portal  FRLHT  Flowers of India

Nomenclatural notes on Piper (Piperaceae) from India III (2020) (Abstract: This paper, in continuation of earlier ones (Mukherjee 2017, 2018), deals with the taxonomic studies of the genus Piper Linnaeus (Piperaceae) from India. It includes information on the identity, typification and nomenclature of ten additional species. The results report four new names: Piper courtallensis P. K. Mukh. nom. nov., Piper kurgianum P. K. Mukh. nom.nov, Piper lamarckianum P. K. Mukh. nom. nov., and Piper travancorianum P. K. Mukh. nom. nov. It also deals with the lectotypification and nomenclature of P. argyrophyllum Miquel, P. attenuatum Miquel and P. talbotii C. de Candolle in addition to supersession of previous lectotypification with new ones for P. leptostachyum Miquel and P. peepuloides Roxburgh. Additionally, new synonyms are added for P. obtusistigmum C.de Candolle and P. talbotii C. de Candolle. Identities of P. peepuloides Roxburgh, P. mullesua Don and P. rhytidocarpum J. D. Hooker as distinct species are reasserted. An overall evaluation of their identity and nomenclature including synonyms is included. Necessary explanatory notes are added for each of the species which are dealt alphabetically)