Potentilla lejocarpa Visiani & Pančić (1862: 431)

Clementi, Moreno, Vukojičić, Snežana, Lakušić, Dmitar & Kuzmanović, Nevena, 2015, names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas I, Phytotaxa 202 (2), pp. 121-134 : 122-126

Potentilla lejocarpa Visiani & Pančić (1862: 431)

Type (lectotype designated here):—[ SERBIA]. s.l., s.d., s.c. s.n. (PAD H0023185)! ( Fig. 2B ).

Additional specimens examined:— SERBIA. In rupestrib[us] syeniticis M. Crni vrh Serb[ia] austr[alis], Jun. [1]861, J. Pančić s.n. (PAD-H0023186!) ( Fig. 2A ).

Note:—The lectotype consists of a complete specimen that was clearly used as a basis for the illustration in the protologue. Attached to it, there is a small seed envelope originally labelled “Sem. Potentillae” (in Pančić’ s handwriting). The only label clearly referring to the lectotype was written by G. F. Reuter (“Voisine de la P. heterophylla Lehm. intermedia auct. dont elle diffère par les lobes calycinaux plus longs et plus étroits, les carpelles plus petits non rugueux”, i.e. “Close to P. heterophylla Lehm. intermedia auct., from which it differs by the longer and narrower calycine lobes, the smaller carpels that are not rough”). The other examined specimen is very badly preserved and hardly suitable as type: only a small segment of the stem, part of a leaf and no flowers nor fruits are present, although its label is complete and compatible with the protologue. It is possible that the lectotype and the additional specimen were originally two parts of a single specimen or gathering, which were only later divided when Visiani’s collection was reorganised, after Visiani’s death ( Lorenzoni 1983). If this is the case, the additional specimen would be an isolectoype. Alternatively, the lectotype might have been grown in Padova from the seeds contained in the envelope that is attached to the specimen. The incorrect orthographical variant “ Potentilla leiocarpa ” appears in some publication (e.g. Euro+Med 2014). The name is now generally treated as a synonym of Potentilla chrysantha Treviranus (1818: 5) subsp. amphibola ( Schur 1866: 198) Soják (1993: 128) (Euro+Med 2014).

Potentilla poteriifolia Vis. in Visiani & Pančić (1862: 433) nom. illeg.

≡ Potentilla visianii Pančić in Visiani & Pančić (1865: 480)

Type (lectotype designated here):— SERBIA. In saxosis serpentinaceis ad Brdjane, Maj. [1]856, J. Pančić s.n. (BEOU 4517!) ( Fig. 3 ).

Additional specimens examined:— SERBIA. E rupestrib[us] serpentinaceis ad Brdjane Serb[ia] Med[ia] culta, J. Pančić s.n. (PAD-H0023189!); [ SERBIA]. s.l., s.d., s.c s.n. (PAD-H0023188!); [ SERBIA]. s.l., s.d., s.c s.n. (PADH0023187!).

Note:—This taxon was named Potentilla poteriifolia Vis. in Visiani & Pančić (1862), a later homonym of Potentilla poteriifolia Boissier (1846: 50) (Art. 53.1, Mc Neill & al. 2012). For this reason, Pančić alone later published the legitimate replacement name Potentilla visianii ( Visiani & Pančić 1865) . The specific epithet “ poteriifolia ” was hastily chosen by Visiani after Pančić refused Visiani’s suggestion to use the name “ P. pancicii ” and proposed “ P. serpentini ” instead, as can be seen in a letter sent by Pančić to Visiani dated 7 March 1862. The specimen that we select as lectotype was collected by Pančić in May 1856 near Brđani and is very well preserved. The name P. visianii , that appears on its label, was added later, probably after the correction published in 1865 ( Visiani & Pančić 1865: 480). A smaller specimen from PAD (PAD- H0023187!), with no indication of collection date or locality, was clearly used to make the illustration that accompanies the protologue and is certainly part of the original material. The name “ Potentilla pimpinelloides Pančić , non L.” is cited as a synonym in the protologue. Despite being erroneously listed by some sources (e.g. IPNI 2014), the name “ Potentilla pimpinelloides Pančić ” was never published as a new species, but was listed in Pančić’ s work as “ P. pimpinelloides L.” ( Pančić 1856: 487). Therefore P. visianii is neither replacement name for “ P. pimpinelloides Pančić ”, nor is it an illegitimate synonym of Potentilla pimpinelloides Linnaeus 1753: 497 , since its type is explicitly excluded. This name P. visianii is generally accepted (Euro+Med 2014).

Figures

FIGURE 2. A. Additional specimen (possibly an isolectotype) of Potentilla lejocarpa Visiani & Pančić (1862). B. Lectotype of P. lejocarpa. C. Illustration of P. lejocarpa in Visiani & Pančić (1862).

FIGURE 3. Lectotype of Potentilla visianii Pančić (1865).