Dianthus plumarius Linnaeus (1753: 411)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2020, Italian alien species in Caryophyllaceae: nomenclatural remarks, Phytotaxa 446 (5), pp. 291-300 : 294

Dianthus plumarius Linnaeus (1753: 411) .

Lectotype (designated here):—Herb. Linnaeus, no. 581.19 (LINN!). Image of the lectotype available at http://linnean-online.org/6021/

Note:— Linnaeus (1753: 411) described Dianthus plumarius with a short diagnosis (“ DIANTHUS floribus solitariis, squamis calycinis subovatis brevissimis, corollis multifidis fauce pubescentibus”), a provenance (“Habitat in Europae & Canada pascuis nemorosis”), and five synonyms cited from Linnaeus (1748: 105) and Sauvages (1751: 143) (“ Dianthus floribus solitariis, petalis multifidis basi canaliculati”), Linnaeus (1745: 344, “ Dianthus floribus solitariis, corollis lacero-partitis, squamis calycinis ovatis acutis”), Linnaeus (1737: 170, 1738: 174), and Royen (1740: 443) (“ Dianthus petalis multifidis”), and Bauhin (1623: 209, 210, “Caryophyllo flore tenuissimo dissecto”, and “Caryophyllo sylvestri, flore laciniato odoratissimo”, respectively).

Four specimens, which are part of the original material, were found at LINN [No. 581.19, original label “9 plumarius” (“9”corresponds to the species number in Species Plantarum); http://linnean-online.org/6021/], UPS [Herb. Burser XI: 1001 (original label “ Caryophylli flore tenuissimi dissecto Bauh. | Federnelcken. Superba Trag. | In hortis Lusatiae | 100”; Fig. 2 ), and Herb. Burser XI: 102 (“ Caryophylli sylvester, flori laciniato odoratissimo Bauh. | In Thuringia, Dania &c. sponte | 102”; Fig. 3 )], and S (No. 179.11, original label “9 plumarius”; http://linnaeus.nrm. se/botany/fbo/d/diant/dianplu2.html.en). These four specimens were listed by Jarvis (2007) who considered also the LINN No. 581.22. This latter specimen, however, is not part of the original material for Dianthus plumarius since the Species Plantarum number of the species (i.e. 9) does not occur on the sheet ( Linnaean’s annotation on the sheet is “ Scania ” [just below the plant], and “16 2” [on the bottom-center], see http://linnean-online.org/6024/) ; note also that it was not identified by Linnaeus.

The four above cited specimens [LINN No. 581.19, UPS (Herb. Burser XI: 100, and Herb. Burser XI: 102), and S No. 179.11] consist of a terminal part of one plant, with cauline leaves and flowers, all matching the original diagnosis, and also correspond to the current concept of Dianthus plumarius (see e.g., Tutin & Walters 1993, Aeschimann & al. 2004). The LINN specimen, which includes the original Linnaean annotation “9 plumarius” as in Species Plantarum, is here designated as lectotype.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Caryophyllo flore tenuissimo dissecto from Bauhin (1623: 209) (UPS-Herb. Burser XI: 100!).

FIGURE 3. Caryophyllo sylvestri, flore laciniato odoratissimo from Bauhin (1623: 210) (UPS-Herb. Burser XI: 102!).