Dianthus sylvestris Wulfen in Jacq., Coll. 1: 237. 1786. [January-September 1786]

Domina, Gianniantonio, Astuti, Giovanni, Bacchetta, Gianluigi, Barone, Giulio, Resetnik, Ivana, Terlevic, Ana, Thiebaut, Melanie & Peruzzi, Lorenzo, 2021, Typification of 14 names in the Dianthus virgineus group (Caryophyllaceae), PhytoKeys 187, pp. 1-14 : 1

Dianthus sylvestris Wulfen in Jacq., Coll. 1: 237. 1786. [January-September 1786]

Dianthus caryophyllus sylvestris ≡ D. caryophyllus subsp. sylvestris (Wulfen) Rouy & Foucaud, Fl. France 3: 193. 1896. Ind. Loc.: - "in montibus illis prope Ponewitsch Baronis Wolkensberg in Carniolia, tum in M. Utocsek prope Pillichgraz; in iis. Vallis Rablensis; denique & in iis Vallis Canalensis &c.".

Types.

(lectotype here designated): The water-coloured iconography published by Jacquin (1781-1786, t. 82, the small individual on the right).

Note.

The iconography designated by Bacchetta et al. (2010) as neotype is actually part of the original material as uncited illustration (Art. 9.12 of the ICN), since Jacquin’s Icones and Collectanea work are interrelated. Therefore this neotypification must be corrected in lectotypification. This illustration depicts two individuals: one small with a 2 branched single-flowered stem and one large, unbranched but with multiflowered stems and basal leaves three times longer, exemplifying morphological variation in this species. In the protologue, it is clearly stated that the larger plant was seen only once in Monte Re, near Lake of Predil, NE Italy ("Uno duntaxat, quod miratus sum, loco Montis regii Rablensis, giganteum inveni, caulibus cubitalibus bi- & trifloris"), while smaller plants are common elsewhere in Carniola. Accordingly, we can conclude that the two drawings depict plants originating from two different areas, thus belonging to two different gatherings. Consequently, the type designated by Bacchetta et al. (2010: 143), neotype or lectotype, belongs to more than one gathering and cannot be accepted as a type (Art. 8.1, 8.2, 9.3 of the ICN). Thus, the name remains to be typified. No other original material for this name exists ( de Langen et al. 1984), so that we select here as lectotype only the small specimen of the water-coloured iconography published by Jacquin at table 86 that better fits the description "folia ... pollicari aut circiter longitudine … Caulis subquinquepollicaris... Flos plerumque unicus [Leaves … one inch or about one inch long, stem less than 5 inches ... flower generally single]".

The lectotype here selected agrees with the current application of the name by numerous authors, e.g., Kerguélen (1993), Bacchetta et al. (2010), Tison and de Foucault (2014), Brullo and Guarino (2017), who consider D. sylvestris as an accepted species. The overall size of the plant, and the length of the leaves are not stable characters for taxonomic discrimination. The shape and relative size of calyx and epicalyx scales are better discriminating taxonomic characters and are evident in the lectotype. These features allow to distinguish D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris from D. sylvestris subsp. tergestinus ( Bacchetta et al. 2010).