Pancicia serbica Visiani (1858: 9)

Clementi, Moreno, Kuzmanović, Nevena, Barina, Zoltan, Lakušić, Dmitar & Vukojičić, Snežana, 2014, Typification of five names listed by Roberto de Visiani in Plantarum Serbicarum Pemptas, Phytotaxa 170 (1), pp. 57-60 : 57-58

Pancicia serbica Visiani (1858: 9)

Type:—[ SERBIA]. M. [Monte] Javor Serb. merid. [Serbia meridionalis], 857 [1857], Pančić s.n. (lectotype designated here: PAD- H0024681 !) .

Additional specimens examined:— SERBIA. Pratis M. [Monte] Javor / C. Užicens, 2500’, Jul. [Julio] 846 [1846], Pančić s.n. ( PAD-H 0024682!).; SERBIA. Užice district: M. Vasilin vrh [Mt. Javor, top of Vasilin vrh] u Užičkoj, s.d., Pančić s.n. ( BEOU 6438!).

Note:—Visiani validly described the new genus Pancicia ( Visiani 1858: 9) without the mention of any species name. However, he clearly linked it by an asterisk to the single species Pancicia serbica ( Visiani 1858: 6) . Consequently, according to Art. 38.5 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), this description constitutes valid publication of both the genus and the species. In the label of the lectotype, locality, date and signature are in Pančić’s handwriting, while the name was later added by Visiani. A second name (“ Pimpinella serbica ”), in an unrecognizable handwriting, was added later. The specimen we have selected as lectotype is fully compatible with the protologue and was used to prepare the illustration in Visiani (1860). Another examined specimen is mounted on the same herbarium sheet as the lectotype. It could not be selected as type since its label only bears the name “ Kundmania sicula ?”, although Visiani probably recognised it as P. serbica , having mounted it alongside the first specimen. It also differs from the protologue in some additional details on the locality, suggesting that it might not have been seen by Visiani before he published the name. This name has sometimes been incorrectly reported as published in 1857 (e.g. The International Plant Names Index 2013 ). This error stems from the fact that the seed list in which the name was published was indeed for year 1857, but it was only completed on the 1 st of February 1858. This name is the basyonym of Pimpinella serbica ( Visiani 1858: 9) Drude in Engler & Prantl (1898: 195), the name in general use for this taxon today (Euro+Med 2013).