leaf for ID

[earthdragon64]

My first impression on looking at this, before reading the other posts, was Angelica sylvestris. I don't think it's Potentilla palustris, the overall shape looks wrong for that. Leif's photo doesn't show the base of the plant, which I think would be conclusive.

Her's a photo I've found of P. palustris leaves, which look a bit different to the ones in the OP.

http://www.victoria-adventure.org/aq...alustris1.html

Regards, Audrey.

[Dorts]

If it's of any help, I have now much enlarged the photo, (helps with my rather poor eyesight!) and can now see a 'furrow' along the central main stem, (rachis) of the leaf. So am happy to concede that this leans towards King Edwards thoughts of Angelica.
Dorts.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

I offer my apologies if I appeared 'patronising' to you, there was certainly no intention.

I simply suggested that Angelica has a number of easily recognisable characters that were missing in Lief's photograph. I emphasised these by using 'non-technical' words in italics that I considered could be helpful in making a correct ID.

The leaves of P. palustris can be quite variable. The first pair of (basal) lateral leaflets in my experience can occasionally be 2-pinnate and leaflet numbers can vary from 3 to 7. I therefore consider it a very good candidate for Marsh Cinquefoil.

Lets not fall out over this, if we all agreed on everything, there would never be any debate.

By the way, here is an excelent picture of Angelica sylvatica leaves.
Angelica sylvestris
All the best,
Dorts.

Perhaps 'patronising' was too harsh a judgement on my part - I accept that wasn't your intention. It is irritating, though, to have one's reasoned comment dismissed out of hand and being told to go and 'google some pics'. Anyway, at least there now seems to be some consensus on the leaf ID, so hopefully we can forget about it and move on.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by King Edward

There is no need to be patronising - most people are able to read without having technical terms such as 'fleshy' and 'furrow' italicised.

Most people may - but as someone with impaired vision that's not fully corrected by glasses, I very much appreciate posters taking the time to add some visual distinction to text, and I certainly do not feel patronised when someone seeks to add clarity to their writing. Please remember that many more people read a thread than actually participate in it and that there is a huge range in the scope of knowledge of readers, including people who will be reading about plants and wildlife for the very first time.

CM

[Johnny Redgate]

The twice-pinnate leaves clinch it for me - Angelica sylvestris.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by Cotham Marble

Most people may - but as someone with impaired vision that's not fully corrected by glasses, I very much appreciate posters taking the time to add some visual distinction to text, and I certainly do not feel patronised when someone seeks to add clarity to their writing. Please remember that many more people read a thread than actually participate in it and that there is a huge range in the scope of knowledge of readers, including people who will be reading about plants and wildlife for the very first time.
CM

Thank you CM.
Without wishing in any way to continue the mis-understanding between King Edward and myself, I did consider writing a piece almost identical to yours above.

When answering any post, I do always try to consider others that may also read my comments and answers, by puttting a stress on particular words either by using italics or 'apostrophies' on the points I consider important.

I am aware that many may not require this extra inforormation, but many do, as often shown by follow-up questions. So rather than just saying, "I don't agree with this or that", I like to add why this is so, pointing out and stressing particular points.

I have no problem with my ID's being challenged or challenging others. This is why WAB is such a superb site, as almost always the correct information will sooner or later come to the fore.
Dorts.