Heliosperma monachorum Visiani & Pančić (1865: 463)

Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella & Vukojičić, Snežana, 2015, Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II, Phytotaxa 224 (1), pp. 29-44 : 30

Heliosperma monachorum Visiani & Pančić (1865: 463)

Lectotype (designated here):— SERBIA. Rača, August [o], J. Pančić s.n. ( BEOU 1716 !) ( Fig. 1 ).

Additional specimens examined:— SERBIA. s.l., s.d., J. Pančić s.n. ( BEOU 1719a!); SERBIA. s.l., s.d., J. Pančić s.n. ( BEOU 1719b!); SERBIA. Derventa, 8 [August] [1]880, J. Pančić s.n. ( BEOU 1719c!); SERBIA. E loc[us] class[icus], s.d., J. Pančić s.n. ( BP 124030!).

Note:—One of the additional specimens ( BEOU 1719a) bears many morphological observations by Pančić and the generic name Heliosperma , certainly written before the name H. monachorum was published, and the specific epithet “ monachorum ”, added later, but no place or date of collection. Amongst these observations, “habitus pudibund. semina pudibund. × Tommasinii ” can be read. In a letter to Visiani (6 July 1860) Pančić referred to this then-unknown taxon with the words “my Heliosperma related to pudibundum ” (“il mio Heliosperma affine al pudibundum ”). In a later letter (7 December 1861), after alluding to the fact that it was Visiani who pointed out to him the affinities between that species and H. tommasinii Visiani (1852) , he added that, after reading Juratzka (1858), he had reached the conclusion that it was “ H. chromodontum Boiss. ”. The specimen that we select here as type bears the note “prob[abiliter] Heliosperma chromodontum Boiss. ” and no other final designations. Nevertheless, since BEOU 1719a was later identified by Pančić as H. monachorum , and we could prove, albeit very indirectly, that Pančić considered BEOU 1716 to be a member of the same species, and that it was available to him between 1861 and 1865, we can safely conclude that it too must be part of the original material. Since it was also certainly collected from the locus classicus, we prefer it over other specimens as the lectotype. The previously unpublished name “ Silene monachorum Vis. ” is cited in the protologue as a synonym. It appears that Visiani and Pančić intended it as an alternative name, in anticipation of a possible reclassification of H. monachorum in the genus Silene . The name was therefore not validly published in Visiani & Pančić (1865) (Art. 36.1(c) of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Pančić suggested (in litt.) not to use the epithet “ monachorum ” since the plant “grows far from the small monastry of Rača (in which just one monk is living) and it also grows elsewhere” (“cresce distante dal piccolo monastero Rača in cui vive per adesso solo un monaco [...] e cresce anche [...] altrove”). He suggested the name “ Heliosperma microdon ” instead “ ob paleolas in margine seminis quem in affinibus breviores ”. This taxon is now generally treated in Silene pusilla Waldstein & Kitaibel (1812) ≡ Heliosperma pusillum (Waldst. & Kit.) Reichenbach (1844: 78) , either as a synonym (e.g. Euro+Med 2015) or as a subspecies: H. pusillum subsp. monachorum (Vis. & Pančić) Niketić & Stevanović (2007) .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Heliosperma monachorum Vis. & Pančić.