09-01-2017, 11:22 PM
This is one of not so many plants that can boast some consensus amongst various researchers' identifications. Th. Petersen, the Finnish biologist and Steve D all consider it Paris.
Now, -JKP- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that Paris does have four leaves (btw, hence quadrifolia), while the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has more. -JKP- suggests this plant to be trientalis europaea.
But trientalis europea has seven leaves, which (unlike Paris, the four leaves of which reveal themselves at best in "cross" only - like Kreuzblatt or Crux Christi) are explicitly resembled in its folk names in some languages (German Siebenstern, Russian седмичник). So if the author confused the number of leaves indeed, he would have been more likely to do that with Paris, and not with Trientalis, wouldn't he?
What do you think? Any other interpretations? Sherwood considers this Arnica montana.
Now, -JKP- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that Paris does have four leaves (btw, hence quadrifolia), while the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has more. -JKP- suggests this plant to be trientalis europaea.
But trientalis europea has seven leaves, which (unlike Paris, the four leaves of which reveal themselves at best in "cross" only - like Kreuzblatt or Crux Christi) are explicitly resembled in its folk names in some languages (German Siebenstern, Russian седмичник). So if the author confused the number of leaves indeed, he would have been more likely to do that with Paris, and not with Trientalis, wouldn't he?
What do you think? Any other interpretations? Sherwood considers this Arnica montana.