Centaurea lacaitae Peruzzi (2008: 114)

Santangelo, Annalisa, Guacchio, Emanuele Del, Cennamo, Paola & Caputo, Paolo, 2017, Reassembling the Centaurea tenorei group (Asteraceae) puzzle: typification of the names, Phytotaxa 298 (2), pp. 119-133 : 124-128

Centaurea lacaitae Peruzzi (2008: 114) ≡ Centaurea dissecta var. maritima Lacaita ex Fiori (1904: 335) ≡ Centaurea tenorei var. maritima (Lacaita ex Fiori) Lacaita (1922: 175) — Centaurea dissecta subsp. maritima (Lacaita ex Fiori)

Zangheri (1976: 755), comb. inval. (Art. 41.1). Type:— ITALY. Campania, “Capo d’Orso | Costiera di Amalfi”, 18 June

1883, C.C. Lacaita n. 807 [barcode FI-050203, sub C. dissecta var. maritima mihi (photo!), lectotype here designated]

( Fig. 3 )]. Duplicate in K (barcode K-000772975).

— Centaurea ursina Lacaita , nom. inval.

= Centaurea dissecta var. maritima f. alata Fiori (1907: 187) , syn. nov. Type:— ITALY. Campania, “Ravello | rocks between Pontone and Ferriera | 5 June 1883, [C.C. Lacaita] n. 611 [barcode BM-001043217, sub “ Centaurea ursina mihi” (photo!), lectotype here designated] ( Fig. 4 )].

— Centaurea ursina var. alata Lacaita , nom. inval.

= Centaurea dissecta var. maritima f. cinerarioides Fiori (1907: 187) , syn. nov. Type:— ITALY. Campania, “Ravello hills between Pontone and the Ferriera | c. 1000 [feet]”, 4 July 1902, [C.C. Lacaita] n. 608 [both fragments] (barcode BM-001043216, sub C. ursina (photo!), lectotype here designated] ( Fig. 5 ).

— Centaurea ursina var. cinerarioides Lacaita , nom. inval.

Notes:—The name Centaurea dissecta var. maritima was originally used to indicate low-altitude and almost glabrous or subtomentose populations with capitula about 1 cm wide, and linear leaflets ( Fiori 1904). The pappus is about as long as the achene ( Lacaita 1922). Lacaita firstly distributed samples of this taxon under the unpublished name “ Centaurea ursina ”. The epithet “ ursina ” (“of bear”) is derived from “Capo d’Orso”, a coastal promontory near Maiori. Lacaita sent several specimens to FI in 1884 (obs.), and suitable material for typification must be found among them (“Lacaita in hb. flor.”) ( Fiori 1904). FI-050203 ( Fig. 3 ) is almost glabrous and was collected very near the sea (“Capo d’Orso | Costiera di Amalfi”, on the label), therefore fully matching the protologue: “nelle rupi mar[ittime] di Amalfi” ( Fiori 1904). For this reason, we select it as the lectotype of C. dissecta var. maritima Lacaita ex Fiori. The forms of C. dissecta var. maritima ( C. dissecta f. alata , C. dissecta f. cinerarioides , C. dissecta f. hyalina and C. dissecta f. montaltensis ) were all published by Fiori (1904, 1907: 187) and sometimes attributed to Lacaita (cf. Peruzzi 2008) (the latter attribution was corrected by Peruzzi et al. 2015). We argue that the forms subordinated to C. dissecta var. maritima by Fiori (1907) cannot be attributed to “Lacaita ex Fiori”, despite Fiori (1907) himself ascribed them to Lacaita. In fact, according to Fiori (1907), Lacaita did not use those combinations but only their final epithets, e.g. not “ C. dissecta var. maritima f. hyalina ”, but “ C. ursina v. hyalina ” (cf. Art. 46.4 of the ICN). An exception is here made for C. dissecta var. maritima , because by the examination of the specimens in FI and BM, we can state that this combination was firstly coined by Lacaita.

The name C. dissecta var. maritima f. alata was employed by Fiori (1907) for plants gathered at Pontone (Amalfi) by Lacaita, with anomalous involucral bracts.According to Fiori (1907), the corresponding specimens would be preserved in the Lacaita’s herbarium under the name “ C. ursina v. alata ”. Unluckily, there is no trace of this combination, either in BM or elsewhere. However, in BM, there is a specimen that matches satisfactorily with the protologue (BM-001043217) ( Fig. 4 ) on account of the hyaline appendages of the involucral bracts, which are laterally expanded in scarious and erosed wings but with blackish cilia [“ciliae nigrae, apice albae”]. The date of collecting (i.e., 5 June 1883) and the locality (“Ravello […] between Pontone and the Ferriera”) are consistent with the protologue. Hence, we designate BM-001043217 as the lectotype of the name.

The name C. dissecta var. maritima f. cinerarioides appeared in Fiori (1907), who attributed it to Lacaita. It was originally based on the unpublished “ C. ursina v. cinerarioides ” read in Lacaita’s herbarium and coined to indicate floccose-tomentose individuals of “var. maritima ”, which were found by Lacaita at Pontone. In FI, a single specimen from Pontone (FI-050201) is preserved. However, this individual does not match the protologue because it is almost perfectly glabrous. In the Lacaita’s herbarium, cited by Fiori (1907) in the protologue, a relevant specimen is present (BM-001043216) ( Fig. 5 ). It is constituted by a fruiting plant and a basal rosette. The specimen matches well with the original description; it was collected before publication of the protologue in the locus classicus. Also in this case, the name indicated by Fiori is missing, as well as “ C. ursina var. cinerarioides ”, but a note by Lacaita reports “pappus C. cinerariae ”. Therefore, the etymology of “ cinerarioides ”, derived from the similarity with C. cineraria Linnaeus (1753: 912) , according to Lacaita could refer not to the indumentum but to the pappus (“pappus cinerariae ”: Fig. 5 ). We choose this specimen as the lectotype of the name.

Figures

FIGURE 3. Lectotype of the name C. dissecta var. maritima (FI-050203, by permission of the University of Florence, Florence, Italy).

FIGURE 4. Lectotype of the name C. dissecta var. maritima f. alata (BM-001043217, Copyright © by permission of The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London, UK).

FIGURE 5. Lectotype of the name C. dissecta var.maritima f. cinerarioides (BM-001043216, Copyright © by permission of The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London, UK).