Scabiosa achaeta Visiani & Pančić (1865: 465)

Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella & Vukojičić, Snežana, 2015, Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II, Phytotaxa 224 (1), pp. 29-44 : 30-31

Scabiosa achaeta Visiani & Pančić (1865: 465) ( Fig. 2A )

Lectotype (designated here):— SERBIA. In saxosis arenaceis ad Trnava Serb [ia] merid[ionalis], July [1]856, J. Pančić s.n. ( PAD barcode H0023204 !).

Additional specimens examined:— SERBIA. Trnava blizu Raške [Trnava close to Raška], [1]856, J. Pančić s.n. (BEOU-9297!).

Note:—Both the specimen selected as type and the additional specimen are certainly part of the original material. We preferred the one in Padova ( PAD-H 0023204) since it is more complete and clearly recognisable in the illustration accompanying the protologue. This species has long been considered to be extinct ( Vukojičić 1999). At the best of our knowledge, no possible causes for its disappearance were ever proposed, and doubts about its true identity were raised, for instance, by Niketić (2014). When Pančić recapitulated the differences between S. achaeta and S. fumarioides (in litt.), he wrote that “they are no different but for the thicker hairiness (achaeta) and the internal calycine setae, that are shorter or rather absent in achaeta” (“io direi che non sono diverse se non per il indumento più copioso (achaeta) e le sete del calice interno più brevi o piuttosto nulle nella achaeta”). He then suggested to exclude it form the manuscript, which would have given him more time to solve his doubts, and to exchange it with “Lactucopsis aurea del Schultz”. Given that he did not mention S. achaeta in Flora of the Principality of Serbia ( Pančić 1874), it seems that he was at least never entirely convinced that S. achaeta and S. fumarioides are different, or possibly eventually convinced of the opposite. As we examined the original material to check the differential characters, we found that the type specimen of S. achaeta bears at least one quite developed seta, along with numerous others that are reduced to stubs, but not outright absent ( Fig. 2B ). We also discovered that numerous fruits on one original specimen of S. fumarioides ( BEOU 9367!) bear no setae at all ( Fig. 2C ). It is therefore not possible to distinguish the two taxa only on the grounds of this feature. No clear difference in hairiness could be detected in the original material. Pančić also pointed out (in litt.) that the two species share the same kind of serpentinaceous soil, which is not evident from the protologue. It is noteworthy that he altogether failed to ever mention the clearest character that is usually believed to separate the two (see for instance Tutin 1976), which is not recognisable in the dried specimens: the colour of the corolla, that is given in the protologues as lilac (“ lilacini ”) in S. achaeta , and yellow in S. fumarioides . Although it is true that phytochemical features, like colouration and smell, were usually deemed to be of little or no importance by many 19 th century botanists (see for instance Visiani 1847), this omission is still striking and casts doubts over the validity of this differential character. In the protologue, Visiani also mentions larger leaf laciniae in S. fumarioides compared to in S. achaeta , but in the specimen of S. fumarioides that he had available in Padova (PAD-0044651) they are unusually large for the taxon, while they are in fact not at all different from those of the type of S. achaeta in many cases. We conclude that, although a more in depth analysis of these specimens is granted (molecular trials are uderway), there are no clearly discernible morphological differences between the original material of S. achaeta and that of S. fumarioides , and so no grounds, at present, to consider them two distinct species. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability, we here establish that, when the two taxa are treated as the synonyms, the name S. fumarioides should take priority over S. achaeta (see Art. 11.5 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012).

Figures

FIGURE 2. A. Lectotype of Scabiosa achaeta Vis. & Pančić. B. Three fruits on the lectotypes of S. achaeta showing one developed seta (marked in red) and five reduced setae (marked in blue) in total. C. Seven fruits on the lectotype of Scabiosa fumarioides Vis. & Pančić showing only eight developed setae (marked in red) and two reduced setae (marked in blue) in total.