Festuca ovina subsp. laevis Hack.,

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 : 223-225

Festuca ovina subsp. laevis Hack.,

Monogr. Festuc. Eur.: 8a, 107, tab. III, fig. 7. 1882 ( Fig. 1 ).

÷ F.ovina var. laevis Hack. , Monogr. Festuc. Eur.: 84. 1882.

Lectotypus (designated here): with three labels: ITALY: A) “Planta Sicula / Festuca duriuscula L. var. elata / In pratis montosis – Palermo alla / Pizzuta . Maio m. / Leg. Todaro [from Todaro’s hand]” s.d., s.n.; B) “ F. duriuscula / v. laevis m. / det. Hackel [from Hackel’s hand]”; C) “ Festuca [pr.] laevis (Hack.) Nym. Consp. / var. laevis / F. circummediterranea Patzke var. circumm . / III.65 / XII 75 [from Markgraf-Dannenberg’s hand] / det. I. Markgraf-Dannenberg [pr.]” (W!) .

HACKEL (1881: 405) published the name F.ovina subsp. laevis . According to MCNEILL & al. (2006, art. 32.1, 41.3), this name is not validly published in this paper, because it is accompanied neither by a description, nor by a reference to a previously published description; consequently, even this infraspecific taxon has no taxonomic “status”.

Within this invalid “ subsp. laevis ”, HACKEL (1881: 405) reports six different varieties. Among these, a “ var. laevis ” is described, for which he reports the following distribution: “Gebirge Siciliens, Neapol., nördl. Appenninen, Seealpen, Sierra do Alcoy in SO.- Spanien; Daya in Algier; Kreta.” A reference to “Guss. Fl. sic.” is also given.

Actually, even the name F.ovina var. laevis must be regarded as not validly published, as it lacks either a description or a reference to a previously published description ( MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 32.1, 41.3). As a matter of fact, no description is reported, and even the reference to “Guss. Fl. sic.” is not “a clear indication” (M CNEILL & al., 2006, art. 32.6), as it is not clear whether Hackel refers to G USSONE (1827: 102) or to GUSSONE (1843: 86), and it must be reminded that in the two publications two different descriptions and systematic circumscriptions for the species are reported.

According to the above considerations, the name F.ovina subsp. laevi s was validly published only in H ACKEL (1882), where the name of this taxon is accompanied by a short diagnosis in the identification key ( HACKEL 1882: 84), by a whole description ( HACKEL, 1882: 107) and by a figure showing the section of a leaf blade ( HACKEL 1882: tab. III, fig. 7).

Within this subspecies, H ACKEL (1882: 108-112) describes five varieties and among these a “ var. genuina ” HACKEL (1882: 108-110). This last includes five subvarieties, and among these a “subvar. α typica ” ( HACKEL, 1882: 109). Neither F.ovina var. genuina nor F.ovina subvar. typica are validly published here, as both infraspecific epithets are not allowed by MCNEILL & al., 2006 (art. 24.3).

Yet, the name F.ovina var. laevis is validly published in HACKEL (1882: 84) in the identification key, where the epithet is correct and the name is accompanied by a short diagnosis. Moreover, in the index ( HACKEL 1882: 213) the name “ F. ovina ssp. laevis m. 107” is reported, followed by “ v. laevis m. 108”.

This also means that var. laevis of both the key ( HACKEL, 1882: 84) and the index ( HACKEL, 1882: 213) exactly corresponds to the var. genuina invalidly described in H ACKEL (1882: 108). Consequently, even the full description and all the other features reported in the monograph for this var. genuina ( HACKEL, 1882: 108-110) are to be attributed to the validly published F. ovina var. laevis ( HACKEL, 1882: 84, 107), including the following synonyms: “ F. duriuscula Guss. Prodr. Fl. sic. 102 (1827). – Synops. 86 (1842). Parl. Fl. palerm. 198 (1845) non L.” ( HACKEL, 1882: 109), and this distribution area: “ In montibus Europae australis” ( HACKEL, 1882: 110).

To be legitimate, these two infraspecific names are necessarily homotypic ( MCNEILL & al., 2006, art 53.4). The lectotype here designated was chosen within the specimens hosted in W, where Hackel’s personal herbarium is kept; the label bears some notes handwritten by Hackel and all the morphological characters perfectly fit the original description. It appears to be a duplicate of the specimen “TodaroFl.sic. exs nro. 444” collected by Todaro in Sicily and cited by Hackel in the protologue (sub “subvar. α typica ”; HACKEL, 1882: 109).

Figures

Fig. 1. – Lectotypus of Festuca ovina subsp. laevis Hack. [Todaro s.n., W] [© Naturhistorisches Museum Wien. Reproduced with permission]