Festuca duriuscula var. campana N. Terracc.

Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio & Signorini, Maria Adele, 2012, Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group, Candollea 67 (2), pp. 221-228 : 225-227

Festuca duriuscula var. campana N. Terracc. , Relaz. Peregr. Bot. 195. 1872

( Fig. 2 ).

Neotypus (designated by ALEXEEV, 1973: 106): ITALY: “ Campania prope Sora, leg. Terracciano ”, s.d., Terracciano s.n. ( LE [photo]!) .

Lectotypus (designated here for correction): with two labels: ITALY: A) “ Festuca duriuscula b. campana Terracc. [from Terracciano’s hand] / F. ov. v. laevis subv. campana Hack [from Hackel’s hand] / In montosis apricis aridis Campaniae; Nola/ a Casamarciano. Maio 1871 / Terracc. [from Terracciano’s hand]” s.n.; B) “ F. laevis (Hack.) Nym. Consp. / ssp. laevis / var. heldreichii (Hack.) / subv. campana (Terr.) Hack. / III. 65. [from Markgraf-Dannenberg’s hand] det. I. Markgraf-Dannenberg [pr.]” (W!).

TERRACCIANO (1872: 195) validly published a “F.duriusculaLin. c. campana”. The name lacks any indication of rank, but according to MCNEILL & al. (2006, art. 35.4), it must be regarded as a variety.

The variety is described as “foliislongis, glaucis, culmis prope basimincrassato-tuberosis”. It was collected by Terracciano at “Nolasui monti di Casamarciano”, a locality near Neaples and Caserta.

The name was typified by ALEXEEV (1973: 106) with a specimen housed in LE.

Actually, on this lectotypification some major remarks are to be done. First of all, the specimen does not bear any note written in Nicola Terracciano’s own hand (for Terracciano’s handwriting, see SANTANGELO & al., 1995), neither is there any note showing that it was seen by him. Furthermore, the locality “prope Sora” (that is near a small town in the surroundings of Frosinone) reported on the label was not mentioned in the protologue (T ERRACCIANO, 1872). In short, the specimen cannot be regarded as strictly belonging to “original material”, as nothing shows that “the description or diagnosis validating the name was based” upon it ( MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 9.2, note 2). Consequently, the use of the term “ lectotype ” by A LEXEEV (1973) should be considered an “error to be corrected” ( MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 9.8), as the specimen selected by him is not actually a lectotype, but a neotype.

Furthermore, it must also be noted that the specimen does not fit the original description, as it lacks the diagnostic character “culmis prope basim incrassato-tuberosis” (i.e. “culms swollen like tubers near the base”). As a matter of fact, in the specimen the culms are entirely slender, even to the base.

Searching for original Terracciano’s material, in NAP we could find two specimens collected at “Casamarciano”, the locality reported in the protologue. Both specimens bear labels with notes in Nicola Terracciano’s own hand and perfectly fit the original description of F.duriuscula var. campana . Unfortunately, neither of them shows labels or notes with the epithet “campana”, so they may not be considered as type material.

In W, we found one more specimen from Hackel’s herbarium collected at Casamarciano, bearing a label handwritten by Terracciano where the full name of the new plant is reported: “F.duriusculab.campana”. We do not know how this specimen arrived in Wien: possibly it was sent to Hackel as a gift by Terracciano himself, or by a curator of NAP. It comes from the locus classicus and perfectly fits the description reported in the protologue, with the character “culmisprope basimincrassato-tuberosis” particularly evident. For these reasons, we propose to supersede Alexeev’s neotypification according to MCNEILL & al. (2006, art. 9.11, art. 9.17) and we designate this specimen as the lectotype of the name.

This taxon was raised to the rank of species, F.campana (N. Terracc.) Alexeev, by ALEXEEV (1973: 105-106).

Even at the rank of species, the name retains the same type designed by us for F. duriuscula var. campana .

It can be added that a close analysis on this specimen showed that the swollen culms described in the protologue are actually galls due to an insect ( Tetramesa cfr. brevicormis, Hymenoptera ), which uses to lay eggs inside the stems of this plants.

Figures

Fig. 2. – Lectotypus of Festuca duriuscula var. campana N. Terracc. [Terracciano s.n., W] [© Naturhistorisches Museum Wien. Reproduced with permission]