Thymus britannicus Ronniger (1924a: 330)

Bartolucci, Fabrizio & Walter, Johannes, 2015, Typification of names in the genus Thymus (Lamiaceae), Phytotaxa 221 (2), pp. 137-147 : 140

Thymus britannicus Ronniger (1924a: 330)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— UNITED KINGDOM. England. Criccieth, S. Carnarvonshine (Wales), 17 July 1980, Bailey C. s.n. (W-Ronniger 2008-0015160! upper specimen; image of the lectotype is available at http:// herbarium.univie.ac.at/database/detail.php? ID =499677) .

Protologue citation:—“Vazon, Guernsey (Barton); Torbryan, Devon (Lightfoot); Swanage, Weymouth, Dorset; Telscombe, Rottingdean, E. Sussex; S. Margaret’s, Kent, Hinksey, Berks; Oxford, on chalk-rubble, Bullingdon, Oxon; Plain Wood, Northants; Cold Knap, Barry, Glam. (Wade); Criccieth, carnarvon (Bailey); Harlech golf links, Fairbairn Sands (Barton); Merioneth; Buxton, Derby; Newton Stewart, Mull of Galloway, Wigton; Selkirk, Ferrygate Links, E. Lothian; ben y Vrackie, E. Perth; Ballater, S. Aberdeen; Bealach nam Bo, W. Perth; Loch Luichart, W. Ro ss; Melvich (Marshall als T. prostratus ); Ben Hope, W. Sutherland; Thurso, Caithness; Hoo Hill, Balta, Shetland; Blackhead, Co. Clare; Clifden, Galway; Ben Bulben, sligo; Portrush, Antrim”.

Nomenclatural notes:—All the listed herbarium specimens conserved in E (barcode E 00279034! [digital photo]) and W (W-Ronniger 2008-0015139!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015140!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015141!, W-Ronniger 2008- 0015142!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015143!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015144!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015145!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015146!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015147!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015148!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015149!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015150!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015151!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015152!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015153!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015154!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015155!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015156!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015157!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015158!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015159!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015161!, W-Ronniger 2008-0015162!, W-Ronniger 2008-0016317! W-Ronniger 2008-0016318!, W-Ronniger 2008-0016320!) are syntypes.

Taxonomic notes:— Thymus britannicus belongs to the Th. praecox species complex. According to Pigott (1955), it is included within the polymorphic Th. drucei Ronniger (1924a: 328) , which is a highly variable taxon with a wide distribution range: Greenland, Iceland, British Isles, Faroe Islands, Norway, France, Spain, Portugal. Some variants are reported also from the Alps and south-west Germany ( Jalas 1947, Pigott 1955, Morales 2010, Tison & de Foucault 2014). The following taxa are currently included within Th. drucei : Th. arcticus (Durand in Kane 1856: 459) Ronniger (1924a: 331), Th. neglectus Ronniger (1924a: 329) , Th. britannicus Ronniger , Th. pseudolanuginosus Ronniger (1926a: 168) and Th. zetlandicus Ronniger & Druce in Druce (1925: 649) ( Jalas 1947, 1970, Pigott 1954, 1955, Morales 2010, Tison & de Foucault 2014). Among all these taxa, Th. drucei has priority at species rank (Art. 11.5 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Specific morphometric and molecular studies are urgently requested to explain the morphological variability and to understand the taxonomic relationship among the Th. praecox species complex.

Thymus chaubardii (Boiss. & Heldr. ex Rchb.f. in Reichenbach & Reichenbach 1858: 37) Čelakovský (1883: 172) var. subisophyllus Borbás (1890: 90)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— TURKEY. Kara-dagh, inter Amasia et Samsonn, 29 Mai 1889, Bornmüller 939 ( W 1890-0000305 ! right-hand specimen, isolectotype W1991-0001699 !; image of the lectotype is available at http:// herbarium.univie.ac.at/database/detail.php? ID =155494) .

Protologue citation:—“ Anatolia. Karadagh, in pascuis inter Amasiam et Samsonn (Bormüller!)”.

Taxonomic notes:—The currently accepted name for this taxon is Th. longicaulis C.Presl var. subisophyllus (Borbás) Jalas (1974: 263) . The latter taxon seems to be very closely related to Th. moesiacus Velenovský (1904: 16) (lectotype PRC barcode PRC 452079!, syntype PRC barcode PRC 452080!) (see also Ronniger in Rechinger 1938), a species also included within Th. longicaulis by several authors (e.g. Jalas 1974, 1982, Greuter et al. 1986, Baden 1991). Contrary, we consider Th. moesiacus as a well-differentiated taxon. However, further studies will be necessary to definitely establish the systematic relationships among these taxa.