Table Of Content

216 BLUMEA Vol. 38, No. 1, 1993 Review K.M. PUROHIT& G. PANIGRAHI: TheFamily RosaceaeinIndia(Revisionary Stud- ieson SomeGenera), Vol. 1.Bishen Singh MahendraPalSingh, Dehra Dun,India, 1991, vi + iv (unnumbered) + 356 pp., illus. b/w. ISBN 81-211-0064-X. Price unknown. Thetitleofthis volumeis abit misleading. ApartfromRosaceaealso theChryso- balanaceae(twoautochthonousspecies) andtheNeuradaceae(one species) are treat- ed. Thebulk, however, concerns the Rosaceaein themorerestrictedand generally adapted sense. InIndia32 generaofthis family, comprising some450species, are autochthonous.Ninegeneraare treatedin this volume, four(Aruncus, Neillia, Sor- baria,and Spiraea) belonging to the subfamily Spiraeoideae and five(Agrimonia, Alchemilla, Filipendula, Geum, andSanguisorba) to the Rosoideae.Most of the generahaveonlyfewspecies (1 to 6) inIndiabutSpiraea has31 andAlchemillahas 26. The secondpartof the series is now inproduction andwillcontain studies on Rosa, someMaloideaeandPrunusoftheAmygdaloideae. The treatment is largely basedon Purohit’s unpublished doctor’s thesiswritten underthedirectionandoninstignation ofthesecondauthor. Theseregional revisions summarizealarge amount ofinformationnot onlyon morphology butalso on distri- bution,anatomy, karyology, ecology, chemistry (and somelittleon uses). Inseveral places theoreticaltaxonomyis amplyconsideredtoo, amongothersinthechapter on “principles forrecognitionoftaxonomiccategories inrelationtotheRosales”, butalso intheintroductionto therevisionofAlchemillawhere theconcept ofmicrospecies iselaborated.Therearealso special discussion paragraphs on distributionpatterns, endemism, andonevolutionary trendsin thefamily as farasIndiais concerned. Thereareextensive notes on typification andolder literatureandobviously the authors gavemuchtimeandattentiontothese aspects, inthereviewer'sopinion not always themostrewardingactivity fromthebotanical-scientificpointofview. Thebookwas published in 1992butproduction obviously tookalongtime since literatureis consideredonly up to 1983 (except for the authors'own publications which are listed up to 1986). So Prance's revision of Chrysobalanaceae in Flora Malesiana(1989) is not mentionedorconsidered inthe text, withoutany dramatic consequences, however. Identificationis madepossible by a numberofkeys which, as faras I could as- certain, workwell. Theelaboratemorphological descriptions are supplemented by a large numberofquite satisfactory linedrawings.Photographs of typesandauthentic specimens andofseed structure in Spiraeoids(also scanning electron microscopical) areofmuch less quality,as isregrettably oftenthecase inbooks produced in India. Thebookalso containsalistofmaterialexamined. Thiswork is a valuablecontributiontoIndianplant taxonomyanditmay serve as anexample forregional revisionary research. C.Kalkman