Dipcadi maharashtrense

Deb & Dasgupta (1976) described D. maharashtrense based on a single specimen collected by Rukminibai from Panchgani. It is worth noting that Blatter (1928) introduced D. ursulae from Panchgani as well. Deb & Dasgupta distinguished D. maharashtrense from D. ursulae based on leaves, inflorescence, bracts, pedicel and ovary shape (Table 5.). There were no reports of this taxon citing after its publication until Tetali et al. (2000), rediscovered D. maharashtrense from Kas Plateau (Tetali 124, 125, NGCPR!, BSI!). Tetali 124, 125 Herbarium specimens could not be traced at BSI nor at NGCPR where they were deposited. Study from Kas plateau confirmed the population to be of D. ursulae and not D. maharashtrense . The authors expedition to the type locality (2011–2022) has also proven futile to locate D. maharashtrense .

In 2007, Almeida erroneously synonymised D. maharashtrense to D. saxorum (16 August 2007, holotype of D. maharashtrense was annotated, BLAT89501!) which is reflected in the flora of Maharashtra (Almeida 2009). The descriptions of D. maharashtrense by Deb and Dasgupta (1976), Tetali et al. (2000), and the holotype B. Rukmini Bai 433 (BLAT!) are consistent with D. ursulae . Based on our observations and critical comparison of the two, it is clear that D. maharashtrense conspecific with D. ursulae . Thus, here, we subsumed D. maharashtrense into D. ursulae (Fig. 4).