Feedback request: Ranunculus aquatilis (544)

[landgirl]

This post was made automatically in response to a request for comment on the documentation form. There is more general info about such requests here.

Specimen #308838

Taxon:	Ranunculaceae: Ranunculus aquatilis L. ("Common Water-crowfoot")
Filed in taxon folder:	Ranunculaceae: Ranunculus aquatilis L. ("Common Water-crowfoot")
Collected by:	William Robert Price
Collection date:	12/6/1909
Locality:	Great Britain, VC34 West Gloucestershire, Barbers Bridge, SO7722, Dyke below Cross
Institution:	Gloucester City Museum (GLR)
Image:
fruits/flowers:	mature flowers
notes:	Clearly one of those misleading starved mud forms difficult to identify but probably R. heterophyllus var. radians (Revel) Illegible signature, could be Retz, dated 12/01/1938
Filing note:	Ranunculus heterophyllus

Documented by landgirl on 1^st October 2010.

Checked by mossysal

Edit history

date	user	change
04/11/2010	mossysal	Deleted note: Clearly one of those misleading starved weed forms difficult to identify but probably R. heterophyllus var. radians (Revel) Illegible signature, could be Retz, dated 12/01/1938
04/11/2010	mossysal	Added note: Clearly one of those misleading starved mud forms difficult to identify but probably R. heterophyllus var. radians (Revel) Illegible signature, could be Retz, dated 12/01/1938
04/11/2010	mossysal	Deleted locality: GB VC33,VC34 Barbers Bridge, Dyke below cross
04/11/2010	mossysal	Added locality: GB VC34 Barbers Bridge, Dyke below Cross SO7722 (place)

N.B. reporting of the edit history is currently fairly unclear and misleading. Most edits made to specimens appear as a pair of 'add' and 'delete' entries, which may not be together in the list. There are also often 'minor' edits, which are made automatically (rather than due to user activity), for example to merge synonym names.

Log-in to edit this sheet.

User comments about this sheet

landgirl wrote

Notes difficult to read - ?starved weed or mud?

[Mike d'Apice]

Looks more like "starved mud" to me which might make sense as Clapham Tutin and Warburg notes on R. aquaticus ( R. heterophyllus ) suggest that IDing between forms requires comparison of fineness and rigidity of segments of submerged leaves, number of transitional and floating leaves etc etc to distinguish between radians, drouetii, submersus etc so if an underdeveloped specimen collected from mud must indeed have been taxiing to ID - I certainly can't from the jpg!