Festuca × polovina (Bednarska, 2009)

Mosyakin, Sergei L., Sokolova, Irina V. & Fedoronchuk, Mykola M., 2018, On validation and typification of the name Festuca × polovina (Poaceae): a correction and comments on indication of types of names of new taxa, Phytotaxa 371 (2), pp. 127-132 : 129

Festuca × polovina in Bednarska (2009): valid or not?

As we noted above (see also Bednarska & Nachychko 2018), the holotype specimen of F. × polovina has not been cited but its existence in the herbarium of deposit (LWKS) has been in fact indicated ( Bednarska 2009). Following the letter (but probably not the spirit) of the ICN, that can be anyway considered as fulfillment of requirements of Art. 40.6 (the words “typus” and “ holotypus ” and their equivalents in Ukrainian were used) and 40.7 (the single herbarium, LWKS, in which the holotype is conserved, has been specified). The use of the word “indicated” (and not “cited”) in Art. 9.1 and 40.1 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018) is most probably deliberate and means that no full label data citation is required.

No specific information on the type specimen(s) (location, habitat, date, collectors, etc.) was provided by Bednarska (2009), except for a general reference in the text to Western Polissya (the northwestern part of the forest zone) of Ukraine as the main region of occurrence of the new taxon.

When describing her new hybrid, Bednarska (2009) also considered an earlier invalid name Festuca querceto-pinetorum Klokov (1950: 888 , in the key, in Ukrainian; 890, a brief Ukrainian description), which is probably partly applicable to F. × polovina . She concluded that Klokov in fact applied that invalid name to at least two taxa, Festuca polesica in the strict sense, and the hybrid between F. polesica and F. ovina . In addition, in several publications and databases the name F. querceto-pinetorum was cited as a synonym of F. beckeri (Hack.) Trautvetter (1884: 325) (≡ Festuca ovina L. subsp. beckeri Hackel 1882: 100 ) ( Tzvelev 1976: 415, Prokudin 1977: 312) or as a synonym of F. polesica (e.g., Czerepanov 1995: 370). According to Bednarska (2009), two specimens from LE identified by Klokov as F. querceto-pinetorum (one of them annotated by Klokov as “Cotypus”) in fact belong to F. polesica sensu stricto, while some specimens from KW (mentioned but not cited nor specified in Bednarska 2009) indeed represent the hybrids F. polesica × F. ovina . Because of that, for avoiding possible nomenclatural problems and misunderstandings, Bednarska (2009) decided not to validate nomenclaturally and resurrect taxonomically the invalid name proposed by Klokov (1950), but described instead a new hybrid taxon. Thus, the name F. × polovina cannot be typified by any specimens annotated by Klokov as F. querceto-pinetorum because such specimens are not present in LWKS, from where the type (holotype) of F. × polovina was reported already in 2009.

Bednarska (2009) by not citing or indicating unambiguously the holotype of F. × polovina , did not follow precisely Art. 37.2 and Art. 37.3, Note 2 of the Vienna Code ( McNeill et al. 2006, applicable in 2009) and Art. 40.2 and Art. 40.3, Note 2 of the Melbourne Code ( McNeill et al. 2012) and the Shenzhen Code ( Turland et al. 2018). However, Art. 40.2 of the Code (editions of 2012 and 2018, see above) states that the holotype indication can (but not shall nor should) be achieved by reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, and thus it also does not require the precise citation of the type specimen. Incomplete or ambiguous designation of the holotype is also contrary to Recommendation 40A.5 of the Shenzhen Code ( Turland et al. 2018: “Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution of deposition should be followed by any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying the holotype specimen”), but that Recommendation was absent in the Vienna Code; it first appeared (as Recommendation 40A.3) in the Melbourne Code ( McNeill et al. 2012). Consequently, that formally incomplete designation of the holotype does not make the name invalid.

Following the above arguments and conclusions, we confirm that the name Festuca × polovina has been validly published by Bednarska (2009). The relevant comment was added to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI; www. ipni.org) by Kanchi N. Gandhi by request of Werner Greuter, following his discussion with Sergei Mosyakin: “The type citation lacks collection information, such as the collector’s name, collecting number, and date (see ICN Art. 40 Note 2). Nevertheless, the citation of the holotype as housed at LWKS is a concrete evidence showing that a specimen exists. Since the terms “typus” and “ holotypus ” were used, and the acronyms of the relevant herbaria housing the holotype and the isotypes were cited, the requirements of Arts. 40.6 and 40.7 are met. The name Festuca × polovina is treated here as validly published”.