Crepis lacera Tenore (1815a: 71) subsp. lacera

Roma-Marzio, Francesco, Astuti, Giovanni & Peruzzi, Lorenzo, 2015, Taxonomy, typification and karyology of Crepis lacera (Asteraceae), Phytotaxa 208 (1), pp. 45-54 : 49-50

Crepis lacera Tenore (1815a: 71) subsp. lacera

Type (lectotype, here designated):— ITALY. Campania: Montevergine, July 1813, Gussone s.n. ( NAP!, Herb. Gussone Generale). Note:—According to Sabato (1990), this species was published within the “ Prodromo della Flora Napolitana ” in 1815. In the protologue, Tenore did not cite any locality for this species. In another work ( Tenore 1815b), the author cited generically “Habitat in apricis montanis communis”. In Herbarium Tenore in NAP three specimens of C. lacera occur. However, two of them [Dirupata di Morano, s.d., s.c. s.n. ( NAP!); Assergi, s.d., s.c. s.n. ( NAP!)] cannot be safely considered as original material, given the absence of collection dates or other useful information. The third one is bearing two labels (indicating different places) and only one individual. One of these labels is bearing a date later than the protologue (1838), the other one is missing a date, but reports the name “ Crepis dioscoridis ” manu Giovanni Gussone (1787–1866, one of the main contributors to Tenore’s work), later corrected by Tenore as C. lacera . However, unfortunately, it is impossible to consider this specimen as original material, too. On the contrary, in Herbarium Gussone in NAP we traced a specimen collected by G. Gussone at Montevergine in 1813. This sheet, preceding the publication date of the protologue, can be considered as original material and it is here selected as the lectotype. This typification fixes the application of C. lacera in line with its current usage (e.g. Sell 1976, Pignatti 1982).

= Crepis latialis Sebastiani (1815: 16) ≡ Hieracioides latiale (Sebast.) Kuntze (1891: 345) . Type (lectotype, designated here):—Tab. V, Crepis latialis , inchoavit F. Rinaldi ( Sebastiani 1815). Note:—Only one specimen of this taxon is conserved in RO! (in montibus Latii, s.d., Sebastiani s.n.), but it lacks a collection date, and no other available source of information allows us to safely consider it as original material. Thus, we selected the iconography published, along with the description, by Sebastiani as lectotype. Note:— Crepis latialis was published in the same year of C. lacera , and it is currently considered as a heterotypic synonym, with the exception of Babcock (1947) and Zangheri (1976), who considered C. latialis as the valid name. In the absence of information about their exact publication dates besides the year, according to Art. 11.5 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), C. lacera should be accepted as priority name, since Candolle (1838) was the first to synonymize the two names, choosing Crepis lacera . It is also noteworthy to say that Babcock (1947), likely followed by Zangheri (1976), quoted as the place of valid publication for C. lacera the second volume of “Flora Napolitana” ( Tenore 1820: 179), where the plant was just re-described and illustrated.