Dianthus glumaceus Bory & Chaubard

Iamonico, Duilio, 2020, Italian alien species in Caryophyllaceae: nomenclatural remarks, Phytotaxa 446 (5), pp. 291-300 : 292-294

Dianthus glumaceus Bory & Chaubard in Chaubard & Bory (1838: 26).

Lectotype (designated here):— GREECE, Morée, 1836, Bory s.n. (P05343938!, plant on the name). Image of the lectotype available at http://mediaphoto.mnhn.fr/media/1441387062927iPakaoIqPsGLMuq3

Note:— Chaubard & Bory (1838: 26) published the name Dianthus glumaceus providing a diagnosis, some greek localities of Peloponnese (... a Karithène, a Gortys, etc. ...), and a morphological comparison with D. prolifer L. [currently accepted as Petrorhagia prolifera (L.) P. W. Ball. & Heywood)]; moreover the authors cited an illustration (“... Voyez la vignette ui termine le supplément, a la page 343 de l’Expedition en Morée et la fin de la Phanérogamie de la present édition [N° 664]”, image available at http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/?id=5363&tx_ dlf%5Bid%5D=93030&tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=1&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=79) that is original material for the name.

According to Stafleu & Cowan (1976: 488), Chaubard’s collection referred to Nouvelle flore du Péloponnèse et des Cyclades is preserved at P and PC. I checked the online database of the Paris Herbarium (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris), and traced one specimen including original material (P05343938). Of the three plants mounted on the sheet the one in the middle is a later collection not representing Dianthus glumaceus and thus is not relevant for typification. The other two plants are probably part of the same gathering and were collected at “Morée”. The right hand plant has been collected by Bory, is annotated with collection date (1836) and, therefore here designated as lectotype. The left hand individual most likely merely is a duplicate of Bory´s collection that was in Chaubards working herbarium and hence got a copied label in his hand.