Actinodaphne angustifolia

Actinodaphne angustifolia (Blume) Nees (1832: 34). 
= Litsea angustifolia Blume (1826: 566). - [not Litsea angustifolia Hook. f. (Hooker 1886: 169), nom. illeg. = Litsea saligna (Nees) N. P. Balakr. (Balakrishnan 1967: 329) = Tetranthera saligna Nees (1831: 67)]
= Tetranthera angustifolia (Blume) Nees (1831: 65).
= Laurus gullavara Buch.-Ham. ex Nees (1831: 65), nom. inval.
= Actinodaphne gullavara (Buch.-Ham. ex Nees) M.R.Almeida (2003: 51), nom. illeg. et superfl.
= Actinodaphne heterophylla Blume (1851: 342) as per efi thread;

... at a resort  in Vythiri, Wayanad
Date: November 15, 2019 ... Altitude: about 700 m (2,300 ft) asl
... some laurel ?  
Dear friends,
This tree growing in premises of resort, most probably planted, I guess is some member of Lauraceae, and I may be totally wrong. I hope the photos help in recognizing the plant; hoping I get to know the genus.
Its a species of Actinodaphne, could be A. angustifolia. It must have been present originally and not planted.
Other recipients:
Yes .
Yes .
Thank you very much ... for the genus, and possible ID.
I agree that the tree must have been there before the resort came up. Much of their vast premises is natural.
Actinodaphne angustifolia
Nomenclature of Actinodaphne angustifolia seems quite confusing as per earlier discussions at identification of Actinodaphne angustifolia
On further searching in India Litrature online, I think there are two different plants found in South India as below:
1. Actinodaphne hookeri Meisn. (syn:  Actinodaphne angustifolia Hook.f. & Thomson ex Meisn.) as per images and details herein and as per Flora of Peninsular India, both of which look different from your posted plant.
2. Your plant seems to be Actinodaphne angustifolia (Bl.) Nees. as already identified and seems to match as per Flora of Peninsular India, Biotik and GBIF  
I hope I am correct in my analysis. If there is any mistake, pl. point it out.
Yes ..., thanks very much for the analysis.
I too have labelled my photos in flickr with the latter ... Actinodaphne angustifolia (Bl.) Nees
All websites are showing incorrect nomenclature. Simple matters have been unnecessarily complicated by some authors. With regard to A. angustifolia, I am adopting the following nomenclature as the correct interpretation. However, I am only halfway through my work on the Indian Actinodaphne.
Actinodaphne angustifolia (Blume) Nees (1832: 34). 
= Litsea angustifolia Blume (1826: 566). - [not Litsea angustifolia Hook. f. (Hooker 1886: 169), nom. illeg. = Litsea saligna (Nees) N. P. Balakr. (Balakrishnan 1967: 329) = Tetranthera saligna Nees (1831: 67)]
= Tetranthera angustifolia (Blume) Nees (1831: 65).
= Laurus gullavara Buch.-Ham. ex Nees (1831: 65), nom. inval.
= Actinodaphne gullavara (Buch.-Ham. ex Nees) M.R.Almeida (2003: 51), nom. illeg. et superfl.
= Actinodaphne heterophylla Blume (1851: 342).
I am attaching herewith three open access papers  on Actinodaphne concerning peninsular India for further information.
Attachments (3) - Actinodaphne bourneae.pdf, LectotypificationActinodaphe.pdf & Typification-Actinodaphne.pdf
yes. thanks ... looking forward to your clarification and correct  story and classification


Comments