Calamagrostis macrolepis Litvinov (1921: 125)

Paszko, Beata, 2013, The identity of Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta (Poaceae, Agrostidinae), Phytotaxa 118 (2), pp. 35-42 : 38

Calamagrostis macrolepis Litvinov (1921: 125)

Calamagrostis epigeios subsp. macrolepis (Litv.) Tzvelev (1974: 154) . Type :—[ TAJIKISTAN], Turkestania , Shugnan , b. Anderob na r. Pyandzh [near Anderob on Pyandzh river], 8 September 1897, Korshinsky s.n. (holotype LE!).

Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta Hack. ex Paulsen (1903: 167) , syn. nov. Type:—Sheet annotated by Hackel: “ Calamagrostis emodensis Griseb. var. breviseta Hack. differt a typo arista gluma sua breviori haud exserta, panicula angusta, det. Hackel ” [ TAJIKISTAN], Pamir, in thickets, prov. Wakhan [Vakhan], by Sermut [or Semut, now probably called Zumudg], 2900 m, Paulsen 1403, 21 September 1898 (holotype W!, isotypes C! ( Fig. 3), US (fragm. ex W)).― Fig. 3.

Calamagrostis gigantea (Roshev.) Roshevitz (1932: 294) , hom. illeg., non Nuttall (1837: 143). Type:— KAZAKHSTAN. Almaty prov.: Lepsinsk. u. [Lepsinsk territory], syroy lug po beregam Ala-kulya [Lake Alaköl], bliz pos. Kzylagach [Kyzylagash], 10 July 1928, Pavlov 671 (holotype LE!).

Observations: — Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta was described by Paulsen (1903), based on Paulsen’s material from Sermut in Wakhan [Vakhan] (a territory of the former USSR, now the Republic of Tajikistan) collected during Lt. Olufsen’s second Danish Pamir Expedition in 1898 ( Olufsen 1904), and was based on an unpublished description by Eduard Hackel (1850–1926).

The original material of Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta consists of two herbarium vouchers found in two different herbaria: C ( Fig. 3) and W. These sheets have been annotated by Hackel as: “ Calamagrostis emodensis Griseb. var. breviseta Hack. differt a typo arista gluma sua breviori haud exserta, panicula angusta, det. Hackel ”, and the locality as “Pamir, prov. Wakhan, ad Sermut, in virgultis, 2900 m, 21 September 1898, O. Paulsen Nº1403”. Both duplicates appear to have been determined by Hackel; this gathering thus constitutes the original material seen by Hackel. According to Recommendation 9 A . 4 of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae , Fungi, and Plants ( McNeill et al. 2012) the specimen housed at W , where Hackel is known to have worked, is the holotype, and its isotypes are housed at C (duplicate) and US (fragm. ex W) .

The geographic location of Sermut has proven to be difficult to determine, as Olufsen (1904) did not mention this name in his book. However, he ( Olufsen 1904: 8, 11) referred to a village called Semut located in the Vakhan region between Shirtar (now Shitkharv) and Ptuk (now Ptul). Importantly, Olufsen (1904: 4) noted that during their long stay in the upper Pandsh (currently known as Panj, known also as Pyandzh or Pyanj) valley they never set foot on the Afghan side of the Pandsh River, which constitutes part of the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, as the members of the expedition were only allowed to explore the Russian Territory. In addition, Olufsen (1904: 75) provided an illustration showing the village Semut in Vakhan. On an online map ( Vlasenko 2008) of the Vakhan territory there is a village called Zumudg between Shitkharv and Ptul. The similarity between the names Zumudg and Semut suggests that this is the most probable location from which the type of Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta was collected.

In a short diagnosis Hackel mentioned that var. breviseta differs from the typical variety of Calamagrostis emodensis in its shorter lemma awn which is not exerted from the glumes and its narrow panicle. My examination of both the holotype (W!) and an isotype (C!) ( Fig. 3) of Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta revealed that the plant in question has, among other characters, 3-veined lemmas with awns ca. 2.5 mm long inserted slightly above the midpoint of the lemmas, and anthers ca. 1.9 mm long. Thus, I conclude this variety is not related to C. emodensis , which is characterized by its 5-veined lemmas with 4.9–8.5 mm long awns inserted between lobes at 0.4–0.75 of the lemma back, and anthers ca. 0.6–1.1 mm long. The inclusion of it as a variety under that species must be regarded as mistake. The morphological analysis demonstrates that the type collection of Calamagrostis emodensis var. breviseta is so closely similar to C. macrolepis , described by Litvinov (1921), that I do not hesitate to refer the material to that species.