Sesleria juncifolia Suffren (1802: 113)

Pietro, Romeo Di, Kuzmanović, Nevena, Iamonico, Duilio, Pignotti, Lia, Barina, Zoltan, Lakušić, Dmitar & Alegro, Antun, 2013, Typification of names in the Sesleria juncifolia species complex (Poaceae), Phytotaxa 152 (1), pp. 18-32 : 19-22

Sesleria juncifolia Suffren (1802: 113)

Holotype:— ITALY. Friuli-Venezia Giulia: Duino, Intra Rupes Castelli veteris Duinensis [...] floret Martio et Aprili

primus ibi invenit, Brumatti s.n. ( W0030266 !). Fig. 1 . = Sesleria tenuifolia Schrader (1806: 272) Lectotype (designated here):— ITALY. Friuli-Venezia Giulia: in rupibus in mare impendentibus veteris Castelli Duinensis ,

Wulfen s.n. ( W 0030267!). Fig. 2 . Other original material examined: — ITALY. Friuli-Venezia Giulia: Cynosurus juncifolius, Wulfen s.n. ( W 0030265!).

[Icon] t. 6 f. 4 ( Schrader 1806).

Notes:—Suffren described S. juncifolia in 1802, with a brief description: “autour du château de Duin, spéce nouvelle à feuilles linaieres, trouvée par M. l'abbé Brumati” [=“around the castle of Duino, new species with linear leaves, found by the abbate Brumati”]. In that period only S. caerulea ( Linnaeus 1753: 72) Arduino (1764: 18) and S. elongata Host (1802: 69) , both with “non-linear” flat leaves, were known from the neighbouring regions. Suffren's description points out the morphological character (leaf width) that allowed the new species to be distinguished from the two known species. We found a specimen deposited in W in Wulfen’s collection ( W 0030266) collected by L. Brumati on the rocks of the fortress of Duino village, near the city of Trieste ( NE Italy) (“ Intra rupes castelii veteris Duinensis, ... floret Martio et Aprili primus ibi invenit Abbate Brumatti ”) and annotated by F.X. von Wulfen as " Cynosurus juncifolius " ( C. juncifolius Wulfen ex Mertens & Koch in Röhling et al. (1823: 625)). Although Suffren did not write explicitly that he used Wulfen’s material to describe the new species, it is assumed that he used the material seen and named by Wulfen as Cynosurus juncifolius . In fact, according to historical documents (e.g., Moretti 1826: 24–25), F. P. de Suffren (1753–1824) exchanged plant material with some of his contemporaries, including F.X. von Wulfen (1728–1805). Two other specimens of C. juncifolius , collected by Wulfen, were found in W ( W 0030265, W 0030267), which could also be assumed to be part of the material seen and used by Suffren for the description of S. juncifolia . However, we do not to consider them as part of the original material since their labels do not explicitly report they were collected by Brumati. On the contrary, Wulfen’s script on the specimen W 0030266 matches the site of collection and the collector’s name (“Abbate Brumatti”) given in Suffren’s original description. As this specimen is the only one that perfectly fits Suffren’s protologue, it is to be considered the holotype for the name Sesleria juncifolia Suffren.

Schrader (1806) described Sesleria tenuifolia stating that it was based on a specimen collected by Wulfen: “ Duini et Monfalconii in rupibus mari imminentibus (Wulfen) ”. Unlike Suffren, Schrader gave an extensive description of his new species and provided iconography (“ Ic. Nostr. t. 6 f. 4 ”) that is part of the original material for this name. Considering the three specimens collected by Wulfen and named as Cynosurus juncifolius found in W, the specimen W 0030265 does not report a locality on the label while the other two ( W 0030266 and W 0030267) include both the locality “ Duinensis ” and the habitat “ Rupes ”/” Rupibus ”. These scripts match the habitat and the site of collection noted in Schrader’s protologue. However, specimen W 0030266 was collected by Brumatti, while the protologue of S. tenuifolia Schrader indicates that the taxon was described from a specimen collected by Wulfen. Therefore only the specimen W 0030267, collected by Wulfen, is completely in accordance with the protologue. According to Jarvis (2007: 21–22), specimens are better than illustrations for selection as type specimens; therefore, the iconography is not selected as the lectotype. As a consequence, the specimen W 0030267 is here selected as the lectotype of S. tenuifolia Schrader. On the basis of these two lectotypifications it emerges that Sesleria juncifolia Suffren and S. tenuifolia Schrader share the same locus classicus and ecology (the sea-facing cliffs in the proximity of the Ancient Duino Castle). In fact, complete similarity has also emerged after careful macro- and micromorphological analysis ( R. Di Pietro and N. Kuzmanovic, pers. obs.) and these two names have long been treated as synonyms (see below). Thus Sesleria juncifolia Suffren and S. tenuifolia Schrader are to be considered heterotypic synonyms. Suffren’s name S. juncifolia has priority, as it was published four years prior to Schrader’s name S. tenuifolia

After its description the name S. juncifolia Suffren was neglected for a long period, during which the name S. tenuifolia was more commonly used. It was only relatively recently that the name S. juncifolia returned to usage, as a result of research on taxonomical and nomenclatural problems within the S. juncifolia complex ( Strgar 1981, Di Pietro et al. 2005, Alegro 2007, Di Pietro 2007). The use of these two names in floras and checklists is balanced at present, thus a proposal for conserving the name S. tenuifolia over S. juncifolia Suffren is not necessary. Deyl (1980), Pignatti (1982), Nikolič (2006), Valdès & Scholz (2009) and Clayton et al. (2013) treated the name S. juncifolia as a synonym of the name S. tenuifolia , whereas Conert (1992), Horvat et al. (1974) and Martinčič (2007) did the opposite, while Conti et al. (2005) reported the name S. juncifolia only. The usage of these names in the phytosociological literature is also more or less balanced, especially in that concerning the Balkans. However, in the phytosociological papers concerning the Apennines the name S. juncifolia Suffren has been almost completely ignored and substituted with S. tenuifolia Schrader. Only recently has it been accepted and used in some papers ( Blasi et al. 2003, 2005, Catorci et al. 2007, Di Pietro 2010, Lancioni et al. 2011).

According to IPNI (2012) the name Sesleria tenuifolia Schur was published for the first time in Enumeratio Plantarum Transsilvaniae ( Schur 1866). Actually, this name was published earlier in Schur’s previous work: Beitraäge zur Kenntniss des Florengebietes Siebenbuürgen. Ueber die siebenbuürgischen Sesleriaceen ( Schur 1856: 209). Sesleria tenuifolia Schur is a later homonym of S. tenuifolia Schrader , and is therefore illegitimate (Art. 53; McNeill et al. 2012). In both of Schur’s works the taxonomic treatments of S. tenuifolia are confusing. Schur (1856) published this name as a synonym of both S. haynaldiana Schur (1856: 207) and S. filiformis Heuffell ex Grisebach & Schenk (1852: 361) (erroneously reported by Schur (1856: 209) as “ S. filiformis Griseb. non Heuffell”) and therefore it is also invalid under Art. 36.1c of the ICN. Sesleria haynaldiana Schur (and consequently S. tenuifolia Schur ) does not belong to the S. juncifolia complex; it is considered to be a synonym of S. rigida Heuffel ex Reichenbach (1831: 1403) (e.g., Deyl 1946, Valdès & Scholz 2009). However, as Schur (1856) did not specify a locus classicus for S. haynaldiana the type material could not be found and the identity of this taxon is unclear ( Kuzmanović et al. 2013).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Holotype of the name Sesleria juncifolia Suffren (W0030266). The label on the sheet reporting “Typus….Sesleria tenuifolia Schrader….typificavit L. Pignotti (W) 2011-09-30” is not effective publication (Art. 7.9).

FIGURE 2. Lectotype of the name Sesleria tenuifolia Schrad. (W0030267). The label on the sheet reporting “Typus….Sesleria tenuifolia Schrader….typificavit L. Pignotti (W) 2011-09-30” is not effective publication (Art. 7.9).