Fig Trees (Ficus), Captive Elephants, and Conservation of Hornbills and Other Frugivores in An Indian Wildlife Sanctuary

2008·2.9 MB·

by  Ragupathy Kannan

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
other species of Plcigiochilci in the Western Ghats as be seen on the same leaf.
characterizedbyexclusivelybipinnatelybranched(terminal)
plants with oblong-ovate leaves having truncate apex, and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
margins are ratherjagged with up to 11-12 teeth. However,
vestigialunderleavesarealsofound,onlyattheapicalshoots. The authors are grateful to Ministry of Environment
The leaves produce numerous propagules on the ventral andforests.Govt,ofIndia,NewDelhiforfinancialassistance
surfaceandone-celledtojuvenilemulti-celledplantletsmay throughAICOPTAX.
NCES
Inoue, H. (1984): The genus Plagiochila (Dum.) Dum. in southeast So, M.L.(2001): Plagiochila(Hepaticae,Plagiochilaceae)inChina.
Asia. Academic Scientific BookInc,Tokyo. SySteph. Bot. Monogr. 60: 1-214.
Rawat, K.K. & S.C. Srivastava (2007): Genus Plagiochila in eastern So, M.L. & R. Grolle (1999): Studies on Plagiochila in Asia:
Himalaya. BishenSinghMahendraPalSingh,Dehradun. Supplements to section Abietinae, Annotinae, Ciliatae,
So,M.L.(2000): Plagiochilasect.Contiguae(Hepatice)inAustralasia Contiguae, Cucullatae, Poeltiae, Subtropicae and Zonatae.
and the Pacific, with description of Plagiochila subjavanica Cryptogamie Bryologie 20(3): 167-179.
sp. nov. Austr. SySteph. Bot. 13(5): 803-815. Stephani, F. (1918): Species Hepaticarum 6: 129-176.
25. LATIN DIAGNOSIS OF SPIRULINA (=ARTHROSPIRA) MAHAJAN1 MAHAJAN1
S.K.Mahajan2
‘Accepted May 23, 2007
’Botany Department, Government P.G. College, 31, Jain Mandir Path, Khargone 451 001, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Email: [email protected]
InanearlierpaperMahajan,S.K.(2004):Anewspecies- 33-44 pm lata et inter se 39-99 pm distantia; cellulae
of Spirulina (-Arthrospira) mahajani Mahajan from subquadratae, 2.1-3.6 pm longae; vacuolae gaseosae in
Khargone, Madhya Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. cytoplasma uniformiter distributae; cellulae extremorum
101(2): 294-295. I had given the details of place, date of simplicesetcalyptrasingulariplaneconica.
collectionandlocationoftypematerialinEnglish,butdidnot
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
include these details in the latin diagnosis, I wishtoremedy
thisomissionbygivingalatinrenderingofthesedetailshere.
Spirulina mahajani Mahajan sp. nov. The author is grateful to Dr. V.J. Nair, Co-ordinator,
Trichomata veneta, libre natanti, non constricta, AICOPTAX,Centre forResearchonGrasses andBamboos,
4.9-5.6pmlata,extremeleviterangustiora,ordinateetlaxe3-5 BSI, Southern Circle, Coimbatore for rendering the latin
spirata (3.4-5.1 spirata), spirae latitudines fere aequalium. diagnosis.
26. FIG TREES (FICUS), CAPTIVE ELEPHANTS, AND CONSERVATION OF HORNBILLS
AND OTHER FRUGIVORES IN AN INDIAN WILDLIFE SANCTUARY1
Ragupathy Kannan2 and Douglas A. James3
'Accepted November 05, 2007
department of Biology, University ofArkansas - Fort Smith, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72913, U.S.A.
Email: [email protected]
’Department of Biological Sciences, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, U.S.A.
Introductionandbackground figs (Ficus) (Kannan 1994; KannanandJames 1997, 1999).
TheendangeredGreatPiedHombillBucerosbicornis Thespeciesisaffectedbyavarietyofproblemsrangingfrom
(GPH)isthelargest(length: 120cm; mass: 3 kg)ofthenine destructionofitswetforesthabitattopoachingofadultsand
species ofhombills (Bucerotidae) in India (Ali and Ripley squabs from nests (Ali and Ripley 1987), and is listed in
1987). Its dietis principally fruits, with apreponderance of ScheduleI(mostprotected)oftheIndianWildlife(Protection)
238 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 105 (2), May-Aug 2008
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Act of 1972 (MoEF 2006). The bird is almost always seen offig trees suitable forGPH, and thereby convince them of
foraging or nesting in lofty trees of deep wet-evergreen or the potential negative effects of the F/cns-lopping practice
moist-deciduous hill forests (Hume 1890;Ali 1936; Ali and onGPH andothervertebratefrugivores.
Ripley 1987; Kemp 1995), and is therefore apparently
dependent on mature old-growth vegetation. No systematic Studyareaandmethods
study has been attempted to quantify the foraging habitat The study was conducted in the Top Slip area of the
preferences of this species. We hereby present quantitative 1,250 sq. km IGWFS. The Sanctuary is a vast mosaic of
information on a critical component of the foraging moist-deciduousorevergreenforests,teaandteakplantations
habitat-nicheoftheGreatPiedHombill (GPH).Asexplained andhumansettlements (referKannan andJames 1997, 1999
below, this information enabled us to lobby theTamil Nadu formoreinformationaboutthearea).
Forest Department (TNFD) into adopting a policy - a key We developed a profile of the foraging habitat by
management strategy tohelp in conservation ofthe species. measuringdifferentvegetationalcharacteristicsaroundeach
There is a plethora ofevidence in the literature on the of 20 fig trees used by the GPH for foraging, following the
importance ofFicusas afruit source forthe maintenance of approachproposedbyJamesandShugart(1970)andadopted
several vertebrate populations (Janzen 1979; Gautier-Hion byMudappaandKannan(1999)andJamesandKannan(2009,
1980;Fambert 989;LambertandMarshall 1991;Borges 1993), inpress).Circularvegetationalplotsmeasuring0.07ha(radius
1
includinghombills(FeightonandFeighton 1983;Kemp 1995; 15 m) were established around the tree, and 15 vegetational
Kinnairdetal. 1996;KannanandJames 1997, 1999;Dattaand characteristics (Table 1) were measured within these plots.
Rawat2003;JamesandKannan2007;KannanandJames2007). Shrub density was measured by counting stems intersecting
Forthepastcenturyorso.Teak{Tectonagrandis)lumbering a meter-wide stick held at waist height (1 m) along four
operationsintheIndiraGandhiWildlifeSanctuary(IGWFS) orthogonal transects established at the centre of each plot.
in theAnaimalai Hills (Tamil Nadu) ofsouthern India have Heights were measured using a clinometer. Canopy and
been assisted by domestic elephants stationed in the ground cover were determined by making 40 overhead and
protectedforests.Asapartoftheofficialprogramtomaintain ground sightings forpresence ofgreen vegetation sighted at
them, mahouts have been traditionally authorized to feed the cross-wiresofasightingtube atrandom points alongthe
elephants with their favoured forage, which consists of fig transects. Emergence of the centre tree is defined as the
leaves harvested from surrounding forests. This practice projection of the centre tree above the rest of the canopy.
helped conserve precious funds that would otherwise be Datagatheredfromtheforagingplotswerecomparedwithan
allocatedforprocuringelephantfeed. equal number(20)ofcontrol samplesin whichthecentrefig
Between 1991 and 1993, we observed that numerous tree was chosen by pacing 75 m away from the foraging fig
fig trees inside IGWFS had been lopped repeatedly to feed treeinarandomlychosendirection.Thenearestfigtreeatthe
the approximately 30 elephants stationed in the Sanctuary. endofthisdistancewithadiameter(DBH)of20cmorabove
Many fig trees in the Top Slip area (Ulandy range) showed wasusedascentretree,andthevegetational factorsmeasured
telltalesignsofhavingbeenloppedintherecentpast: stunted at the foraging site were measured in a plot centered on the
appearance, truncated boles and branches, and absence of controltree. Weobservedthat75 m tothecontrol plot wasa
fruiting(despitetwoyearsofconstantmonitoring).TheTNFD sufficient distance to evade the forest structure influence of
regarded lopping to be relatively harmless to the trees as it theforagingplot,butstillwithinthesamegeneralforesttype,
was seldom lethal. The elephants aided in lopping and andourfindings,whichfollow,showingsignificantdifference
transporting the bales of Ficus foliage from the forests to between foraging and control plots proved we were correct.
various elephant camps in the Sanctuary. We also observed Wechose20cmastheminimumDBHforthecontrolfigtrees
thatmanylocalavianfrugivores,especiallyGPH,reliedheavily because that was the minimum size in which fig trees were
onfigfruitsforfood. Over90%ofall GPH treevisitsduring observed to bearfruit in the area (Kannan and James 1999).
one year(September 1991 toAugust 1992) weretofigtrees, All the control trees showed no signs of lopping, and GPH
comparedto55.7%forfourotheravianfrugivoresduringthe were not observed to forage in those trees. Our aim was to
sameperiod,andnearlyaquarteroftheresidentavifaunaate compare fig trees used by GPH, with fig trees available and
figs (Kannan and James 1999). Considering such heavy unused in the area (control fig trees), to test the hypothesis
dependence on figs by GPH and many other local wildlife that hombills choose exceptionally large trees for foraging.
species, we collected quantitative data to demonstrate the Such a comparison between used and non-used trees is
importance of large fig trees in the foraging habitat of the important to delineate habitat factors that are crucial for
hombill.OurgoalwastoprovidetheTNFDwithdataonsize hornbill foraginghabitat selection.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 105 (2), May-Aug 2008 239
:
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Results
Results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of
0CL) 15 vegetational characteristics measured in foraging and
E controlplots(Table 1)showedthatthefollowingfactorshad
valuesthatweresignificantlyhigherinforagingplotsthanin
1
control plots: shrub density, average canopy height, tallest
tree height, centre tree height, centre tree diameter, and
CD emergence ofcentre tree above forest canopy. Except shrub
DO
ZQIDC density,allothersignificantparametersrepresent sizeofcentre
CO tree,indicatingthat largetreesareacriticalpartoftheforaging
habitat of the hornbill. PC analysis too emphasized the
1 importance offoraging tree size in hornbill foraging habitat
oW)) selection. Accounting for 77% of the total variance in the
CD
data,thefirstPC(PCI,Table 1)washighlycorrelatedwiththe
smaller TREESIZE larger vegetational characteristics named above thatdirectly relate
Fig. 1:Ordination,with95%confidenceellipses,offigtreeforaging to size and maturity of centre tree: tree height, centre tree
plots used by the Great Pied Hornbill and control fig tree plots, diameter, canopy height, height of tallest tree in plot, and
basedonthescoresofthefirst(treesize)andsecond(shrubbiness) emergence ofcentre tree. PC I could thus be named “centre
PrincipalComponents. treesize.” PCII,whichaccountedforanadded 14percentof
(Thenumberofcircles,bothshadedandopen, numberlessthan
therequisite20eachbecausesomeplotsweresosimilarthatthe the total variance (Table 1) could be called ‘shrubbiness’,
circlesweresuperimposed.) since it was correlatedheavily with shrub density. Together,
PCIandPCIIexplainmorethan90percentoftotalvariancein
WeanalyzeddatausingunivariateAnalysisofVariance the vegetational data measured.
(ANOVA)todeterminewhichhabitatcharacteristicsusedby The foraging and control fig trees were clearly
thehornbillforforagingwassignificantlydifferentfromthose separated (Fig. 1) along the environmental gradient (PC I)
of control samples. Principal Components (PC) Analysis representingtreesize,withforagingplotspositionedtowards
(Morrison 1967) was performed to determine the most larger centre tree size, and control plots scattered towards
importantfactorsdelimitingthehabitatniche ofthe species. theotherendofthecontinuum.Thisportrayalreinforcesthe
MultivariateAnalysisofVariancewithstep-wiseDiscriminant importance of large trees in selection of foraging sites by
Function Analysis (Cooley and Lohnes 1971) was also GPH. Although not obvious visually, the increased
performed to identify the critical vegetation characteristics shrubbiness of foraging plots is evident by drawing a
involved in separating foraging sites from control ones. All horizontal line across the figure so that halfthe combined
these tests were done using SAS Institute (1985) software. circles are above the line, halfbelow. Note that about twice
Table1 Vegetationalcharacteristicsthatdifferedsignificantly'betweenfigtreeforagingsites
usedbytheGreatPiedHornbillandcontrolfigtreesites
Vegetationalcharacteristic Foragingplotmean(n=20) Controlplotmean(n=20) P CorrelationswithPrincipalComponents(PC)
PCI PC
II
Shrubdensity(per60sq.m) 72.5 53.3 0.01 0.16 0.54
Averagecanopyht.(m) 29.7 25.7 0.005 0.74 -0.24
Tallesttreeinplot(m) 35.8 30.4 0.007 0.81 -0.22
Centretreeht.(m) 35.1 25.4 0.0001 0.96 -0.18
Centretreediameter(m) 1.73 1.04 0.0001 0.74 0.098
Centretreeemergence(m) 5.4 -0.28 0.001 0.78 -0.06
Percentageoftotalvariance 77 14
'UnivariateAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)
'Othercharacteristicsthatweremeasuredbutdidnotdiffersignificantlywere: percentcanopyandgroundcoverandnumberoftreesin
theplotinthediameter(DBH)classes(cm) 15-30,30-45,45-60,60-75,75-90,90-105,and>105.
UnderlinedvaluesinPrincipalComponents(PC)analysisrepresenthighcorrelationswiththeirrespectivePCs.
240 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 105 (2), May-Aug 2008
9
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
asmany foragingplots thancontrol plots are above the line, programoftrail-sideplanting2,000FicussaplingsintheTop
indicating increased overall shrubbiness in the foraging Slip area of IGWLS, although none survived because of
plots. Twice as many control plots compared to foraging grazingbywildmammalianherbivores(DJandRKpers.obs.).
plots are below the line indicating overall decreased ThehighshrubdensityinGPHforagingsitesprobably
shrubbiness in the control plots. resulted from the deposition of seeds in the rain of faeces
Three vegetational characteristics were identified by produced by vertebrate frugivores. This ‘seed-rain’ and the
Stepwise DiscriminantFunctionAnalysis as most important resulting seedling growth (Guevara et al. 2004) may have
inprovidingseparationsbetweenforagingandcontrol plots. accounted for the increased density ofshrubs beneath GPH
These were: centre tree height, canopy cover, and shrub foraging sites.
density(P=0.0001,0.0129,and0.0002respectively),thefirst TheFicustaxa,withitsmultitudeofcoexistingspecies,
two emphasizing the importance of tree size in hornbill contributes significantly to the diversity oftropical forests
foraging. (Harrison 2005), and thus warrants conservation measures.
Frequent lopping of branches, although not often lethal to
Discussion the tree, results in stunted vegetative growth, and may
Lopping fig trees to feed captive elephants has negatively affect production of fig fruits. This could
apparentlybeenpracticedintheIGWLS sincethebeginning adversely limit food and nutritional availability (O'Brien
oflumberingoperationsinlate 1 thandearly20thcentury.The et al. 1998; Wendeln et al. 2000) for frugivores, and thus
findings of this study, and those ofconcurrently conducted affectthesurvivalofGPH. Giventhecriticalrolesplayedby
phenology and GPHfeedingecology studies(Kannan 1994; hornbillsasseed-dispersal agents(Kinnaird 1998; Kitamura
Kannan and James 1997, 1999, 2007) highlighted the et al. 2004), it follows that systemic lopping of fig trees
importance of large fig trees for GPH foraging, and the couldleadtoserial localextinctionswithinforestecosystems
‘keystone’ (Lambert and Marshall 1991) nature ofFicus in by jeopardizing key plant-animal interactions. While it is
theconservationofhornbillsandothervertebratefrugivores. encouraging that this study helped in enacting a ban
In our study area, fig fruits were available year-round, and on fig tree lopping in the Sanctuary, it is imperative that
their availability when other fruits were scarce made them this policy be enforced on a consistent basis. Also, forest
especiallyimportantforfrugivores(KannanandJames 1999). management training programs at state and national levels
Moreover,thepatternoffigproductionsignificantlyincreased must incorporate and stress the importance ofconservation
during the dry and hot months between February and May, offigtrees inmaintenanceofwildlifepopulations.
coincidingwiththebreedingseasonoftheGPH(Kannanand This case can be an example ofpositive conservation
James 1999),whenthemajorityoffooditems(72.9%)delivered work that can be accomplished when scientists and local
by parent hornbills to confined nest inmates were figs forestdepartmentsworkcooperatively.
(Kannan and James 1997). Non-fig fruits exhibited highly
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
seasonal fruiting patterns, being available only during the
dry and hot season. Our findings prompted the TNFD into
mandatingatotal banon figtreeremoval and lopping inside The Wildlife Conservation Society, Ornitholidays
IGWLS in May 1992. Upon prompting from us, the policy (throughtheOrientalBirdClub,U.K.),R. Balachander,M.D.,
was reinforced via a circular dated May 12, 1995 from TheArkansasAudubon Society Trust, andthe University of
Mr.M.Krishnakumar,I.F.S.,WildlifeWardenofIGWLS,toall Arkansas provided financial help. Divya Mudappa, Vidya
Range Officers in the sanctuary (M. Krishnakumar, pers. Athreya and Gary Neaville, M.D., assisted in the field. The
comm.). Asof2001, thatdirective wasstill the policy in the TamilNaduForestDepartmentpermittedworkintheforests
department(N. Loganathan,TNFD, pers. comm.).Although of the state and was receptive to our findings and
violations ofthe ban still occur sporadically (R. Natarajan, recommendations. Shekar Dattatri introduced us to some
IGWLS,pers.comm.,2001),loppingisnolongersystemicin useful tribal people. Lorie Livingston helped with plotting
the IGWLS. In addition, theTNFDembarked on (in 1993) a the confidence ellipses.
REFE NCES
An, S. (1936):TheornithologyofTravancoreandCochin.J. Bombay within two tropical Indian forests. Biotropica 25:183-190.
Nat. Hist. Soc. 39: 3-35. Cooley,W.W.&P.R.Lohnes(1971):Multivariatedataanalysis. Wiley
Ali,S. & S.D. Ripley(1987):CompactHandbookofthe BirdsofIndia &Sons,NewYork.
and Pakistan. Oxford University Press. Datta,A.&G.S.Rawat(2003):Foragingpatternsofsympatrichornbills
Borges,R.M.(1993):Figs,MalabarGiantSquirrels,andfruitshortages duringthenon-breedingseasoninArunachal Pradesh,northeast
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 105 (2), May-Aug 2008 241
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
India. Biotropica 35: 208-218. Kemp,A. (1995): The Hornbills. Oxford University Press, England.
Gautier-Hion,A. (1980): Seasonalvariationsofdietrelatedtospecies Kinnaird, M.F. (1998): Evidence of effective seed-dispersal by the
andsex inacommunityofCercopithecusmonkeys.Journalof Sulawesired-knobbed hornbillAceroscassidix. Biotropica30:
Animal Ecology 49: 237-269. 50-55.
Guevara, S., J. Laborde & G. Sanchez-Rios (2004): Rainforest Kinnaird,M.F.,T.GO’Brien&S.Suryadi(1996):Populationtracking
regenerationbeneaththecanopyoffigtreesisolatedinpastures in Sulawesi Red-knobbedHornbills: trackingfigsin space and
ofLos Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biotropica 36: 99-108. time. Auk 113: 431-440.
Harrison, R.D. (2005): Figs and the diversity oftropical rainforests. Kitamura, S., S. Suzuki, T. Yumoto, P. Poonswad, P. Chuailua,
BioScience 55: 1053-1064. K. Plongmai, N. Noma,T. Maruhashi & C. Suckasam (2004):
Hume, A.O. (1890): Order Bucerotes. In: The Nests and Eggs of DispersalofAglaiaspectabilis.alarge-seededtree speciesina
Indian Birds. Vol. III. Oates, E.W. (Ed.): R.H. Porter, London. moistevergreenforestinThailand.JournalofTropicalEcology
1890. 20: 421-427.
James, D.A. & R. Kannan (2007): Wild Great Hornbills (Buceros Lambert,F.(1989):Fig-eatingbybirdsinaMalaysianlowlandrainforest.
bicornis)donotusemudtosealnestcavities. WilsonJournalof Journal ofTropical Ecology 5: 401-412.
Ornithology 119: 120-123. Lambert, F. & A. Marshall (1991): Keystone characteristics ofbird
James,D.A.&R.Kannan(2009):NestinghabitatoftheGreatHombill dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rainforest. Journalof
(Buceros bicornis) in the Anaimalai Hills of southern India. Ecology 79: 793-809.
WilsonJournalofOrnithology Vol. 121. in press. Leighton,M.&D.R.Leighton(1983):Vertebrateresponsestofruiting
James, F.C. & H.H. Shugart Jr. (1970): A quantitative method of seasonality within a Bornean rain forest. Pp. 181-196.
habitat description. Audubon Field Notes 24: 727-736. In: Sutton, S.L., T.C. Whitmore & A.C. Chadwick (Eds):
Janzen, D. (1979): How to be a fig. Annual Review ofEcology and Tropical rainforests: ecology and management. Blackwell
Systematics 10: 13-51. Scientific Publications,Oxford,England.
Kannan,R.(1994):EcologyandconservationoftheGreatPiedHornbill MoEF (Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, Govt, ofIndia) (2006):
(Buceros bicornis) in the Western Ghats of southern India. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended up to
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 1993.www.envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlifel html(accessed
Arkansas,U.S.A. May 2006).
Kannan, R. & D.A. James(1997): BreedingbiologyoftheGreatPied Morrison, D.F. (1967): Multivariate statistical methods. McGraw-
Hornbill (Buceros bicornis) in the Anaimalai hills ofsouthern Hill,NewYork.
India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 94: 451-465. Mudappa, D.C. & R. Kannan (1999): Nest-site characteristics and
Kannan, R. & D.A. James (1999): Fruiting phenology and nestingsuccessoftheMalabarGrayHombill Ocycerosgriseus
the conservation oftheGreat Pied Hombill (Bucerosbicornis) in the southern Western Ghats, India. Wilson Bulletin 109:
in the Western Ghats of southern India. Biotropica 31: 102-111
.
167-177. O'Brien,T.G.,M.F.Kinnaird,E.S.Dierenfeld,N.L.Conklin-Brittain,
Kannan, R. & D.A. James (2007): Phenological studies of hornbill R.W.Wrangham&S.C.Silver(1998):What’ssospecialabout
fruit plants in tropical rainforests: methodologies, problems, figs?Nature392: 668.
and pitfalls. Pp. 155-166. In: Kemp,A.C. & M.I. Kemp (Eds): SAS Institute (1985): SAS user’s guide: Statistics, version 5. SAS
The Active Management of Hornbills for Conservation, Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
CD-Rom Proceedings of the 4,h International Hornbill Wendeln, M.C., J.R. Runkle & E.K.V. Kalko (2000): Nutritional
Conference, Mabula Game Lodge, Bela-Bela, South Africa. value of 14fig species andbatfeeding preferences in Panama.
Naturalists & Nomads, Pretoria. Biotropica 32: 489-501.
THREE NEW ADDITIONS TO THE NON-INDIGENOUS FLORA
27.
OF ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA
1
P.G.Diwakar-andL. Rasingam3
'Accepted August 08, 2006
2Botanical Survey of India, Western Circle, Pune 411 001, Maharashtra, India. Email: [email protected]
’Keystone Foundation, Groves Hill Road, Kotagiri 643 217. Tamil Nadu, India. Email: [email protected]
During a botanical exploration in the LittleAndaman Pentapetesphoenicea L., Sp. PI: 698. 1753; Mast, in
Island, the authorscollectedthree plant species, which have Hook.f.,FI.Brit.India 1:371.1874;Ridl.,FI.Mai.Pen. 1:284.
been identified as Pentapetesphoenicea L. (Sterculiaceae), 1922;C.Phengklai,FI.Thai.7(3):595.2001.RangustifoliaBl„
Asclepias currasavica L. (Asclepiadaceae), and Acorus Bijdr.:87. 1825.
calamus L. (Araceae). The literature on the floristics of Annual herb, c. 80 cm high. Leaves simple, narrowly
AndamanandNicobarIslandsshowsthatoccurrenceofthese lanceolate,3.0-14.0x0.5-1.5cm,apexacuminate,baseobtuse,
taxa from the union territory has not been reported earlier marginserratetoserrulate. Flowerspink. Sepals 5,narrowly
(Vasudeva Rao 1986; Mathew 1998). The present triangular. Petals bowl-shaped. Stamens in 5 groups;
communication gives a current nomenclature, brief staminodes 5, inserted between the group of stamens, both
description, distribution and ecology. surroundingtheovary. Ovaryovoid, hairy,5-locular.
242 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 105 (2), May-Aug 2008