Salix kitaibeliana Willd., Sp. Pl., ed. 4 [Willdenow] 4(2): 683-684 (1806)

Novikov, Andriy, 2023, An annotated nomenclatural checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians, Biodiversity Data Journal 11, pp. 103921-103921 : 103921

Salix kitaibeliana Willd., Sp. Pl., ed. 4 [Willdenow] 4(2): 683-684 (1806)

Salix kitaibeliana ≡ Salix retusa subsp. kitaibeliana (Willd.) Jáv., Magyar Fl.: 235 (1924) *; POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/3007645-4

Salix kitaibeliana ≡ Salix retusa f. kitaibeliana (Willd.) Rouy, Fl. France [Rouy & Foucaud] 12: 219 (1910) *; POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/3253081-4

Salix kitaibeliana ≡ Salix retusa [unranked] γ Salix kitaibeliana (Willd.) Rchb., Reichenbachianae Fl. German.: 15 (1833) et Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. 11: 16, fig. 1187 (1849); GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/9285964; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5763497#page/22

Salix kitaibeliana = Salix retusa [unranked] b Salix serrulata Roch., Pl. Banat.: 78, tab. 38, fig. 80 (1828)

Salix kitaibeliana = Salix retusa var. serrulata Roch. ex Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 166 (1831); POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/3235618-4; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/7359#page/239

Salix kitaibeliana = Salix retusa var. major Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 166 (1830-1832); POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/3235617-4; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/7359#page/239

Salix kitaibeliana = Salix retusa [unranked] β Soldanella major W.D.J. Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ. Helv.: 660 (1837) [nom. superfl.]; GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/11966312; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/29532#page/724

Conservation status

In Ukraine - EN ( Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

A rare species listed by the Red Book of Ukraine ( Danylyk 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021) with an unclear taxonomic position.

In all databases that were accessed on 06.06.2023, including CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6XDTN), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/8119241), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/778676-1), Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/fbc32a8d-dcc0-4db9-8ae3-d3cad32cc004) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Salix-retusa), S. kitaibeliana is provided as a synonym for S. retusa L., a Paneuropean mountainous species. Similarly, it is synonymised with S. retusa by many Ukrainian authors (e.g. Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk (1999), Danylyk (2009), Chorney (2011), Ishchuk (2017)). It is also synonymised by Kucowa (1954) and Mirek et al. (2020). However, Kliment et al. (2016), like some other authors (e.g. Piscová et al. (2021)), consider S. kitaibeliana as an independent species. Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015) noted that these two species are very close, but also still delimited them, based on the differences in the leaf morphology (leaves are up to 2 cm long obovate, with a retuse tip in S. retusa and up to 4 cm long, oblong-obovate, with a pointed tip in S. kitaibeliana ). The same differences in the leaf morphology applied to delimit S. kitaibeliana and S. retusa in the Flora of Romania ( Beldie 1952), where they are, however, provided in the rank of varieties. Salix retusa s. str. is considered in the Flora of Romania as S. retusa var. genuina Rchb. and S. kitaibeliana - as S. retusa var. kitaibeliana (Willd.) Rchb. Additionally, Beldie (1952) mentioned differences in their habitus (short creeping stems and branches in S. retusa and firm and sometimes ascending stems in S. kitaibeliana ). The difference in the leaf morphology of these two species was statistically confirmed by Kosiński and Adreas Hilpold (2017). However, later phylogenetic studies ( Kosiński et al. 2019) regarding ploidy did not allow delimiting S. kitaibeliana .

It is worth noting that Pawłowski (1946) also recognised S. retusa and S. kitaibeliana separately. He pointed out that, despite these two species often co-occurring, S. retusa prefers lime substrates while S. kitaibeliana mainly grows on granite outcrops and rocks. Myklestad and Birks (1993) partially confirmed such ecological differentiation of these two species in their ecogeographical studies - on the provided graphs, S. kitaibeliana is well separated from S. retusa .