Kadamba

[Christophe Vielle]

For possible common "English" names, one can find kadam and kaim 
according to the choice of one or the other (close) identification.

See:
http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Kadam.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinesh_valke/2078204194/
http://envis.frlht.org.in/botanical_search.php?txtbtname=&gesp=198%7CAnthocephalus+cadamba+MIQ
(in the latter important database, there is also separate entries for 
Anthocephalus chinensis (LAM.) A.RICH. EX WALP., Anthocephalus 
indicus, Nauclea cadamba ROXB., which is taxinomically rather 
confusing)

or
http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Kaim.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinesh_valke/484191208/
http://envis.frlht.org.in/botanical_search.php?txtbtname=Anthocephalus+cadamba+MIQ..&gesp=1442%7CMitragyna+parvifolia+KORTH.
(in the latter, there is also separate entries for  Stephegyne 
parvifolia KORTH.)

beautiful flowers indeed...
CV


>It remains interesting to note through this wonderful tool Pandanus 
>database that
>
>Mitragyna parvifolia Korth. = Stephegyne parvifolia [contra 
>parvi"-flora" Apte] S.Vidal, same Rubiaceae family as Anthocephalus 
>chinensis = skt kadamba but in this case identified with Skt vitaana
>see: http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Mitragyna+parvifolia
>
>is identified with Tamil ka.tampai, niirkka.tampu (same in 
>Malayaa.lam), ci_n_nakka.tampu, Mal. roosu ka.tampu or viimpu,
>which means, on the basis of this "sub-variety" Dravidian lexical 
>classification, that Apte's identification is not wrong at all, and 
>that two (close) plants remain possible in this case.
>
>Christophe Vielle
>
>

-- 

http://belgianindology.lalibreblogs.be