Clinopodium dalmaticum (Benth.) Bräuchler & Heubl

Bräuchler, Christian, 2018, And now for something completely different-new names in Clinopodium with comments on some types, Phytotaxa 356 (1), pp. 71-80 : 74

Clinopodium dalmaticum (Benth.) Bräuchler & Heubl in Bräuchler et al. (2006: 979)

≡ Micromeria dalmatica Bentham (1848: 225)

≡ Satureja dalmatica (Benth.) Nyman (1855: 102)

≡ Thymus origanifolius Visiani (1830: 51) , nom. illeg., non Don (1825: 113)

≡ Calamintha origanifolia Visiani (1847: 199) , nom. illeg., non Host (1831: 130).

≡ Micromeria origanifolia Boissier (1879: 575) , nom. illeg., non Bentham (1848: 214)

≡ Satureja origanifolia Briquet (1896: 299) , nom. illeg.

Protologue citation:— MONTENEGRO. “Hab. circa Ascrivium [Kotor] in saxosis. Fl. Julio Augusto. Flores albi. v.v. [vidi vivam = seen in living state]”

Nomenclatural notes:—No type material was traced at PAD (pers. comm. Rossella Marcucci, 18.10.2011) and the corresponding material may have been lost during WWII when the material was evacuated. It is at least doubtful whether the material distributed in higher copy numbers to various herbaria actually is part of the original material, the more so since the protologue cites locality, flowering time and living plants observed but not a gathering. The K specimens erroneously cited as syntypes by Bräuchler (2006: 979) and copied by Melnikov (2015: 106) are not to be regarded as syntypes. The dated specimens are labelled “1832” and “1837”, and may represent original material in case these are dates of communication of the specimen or have no nomenclatural relevance at all in case they represent true dates of collecting. The correct locality for K 000193557! reads: “ Montenegro ad rupes”. Although rather to be considered a neotype, Melnikov´s (2015: 106) lectotype (K 000193556!, right hand individual) may be accepted until a thorough search has been conducted at PAD and other institutions known to keep original material of Visiani.