Sesleria italica (Pamp.) Ujhelyi (1959: 604) subsp. italica

Pietro, Romeo Di, Kuzmanović, Nevena, Lakušić, Dmitar, Viciani, Daniele, Fortini, Paola & Iamonico, Duilio, 2021, Nomenclatural and taxonomic notes on some names of Sesleria sect. Argenteae (Poaceae) from Italy and the Balkans, Phytotaxa 494 (1), pp. 89-102 : 90-96

1. Sesleria italica (Pamp.) Ujhelyi (1959: 604) subsp. italica ≡ Sesleria caerulea var. italica Pampanini (1917: 50) ≡

Sesleria insularis subsp. italica (Pamp.) Deyl (1978: 364)

Type:— ITALY. Emilia-Romagna, adm. Province Forlì, Galeata, 12 April 1917, Pampanini s.n. (lectotype designated by Ujhelyi 1959 a: 605, FI007054!, image of the lectotype available at http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/img72/FI007054.jpg; isolectotype BP593476!) .

= Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya Pampanini (1917: 4) .

Type:— REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO. Borgo Ornella , 02 May 1912, Pampanini 660 (lectotype designated here, FI007337! image of the lectotype available at http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/img72/FI007337.jpg) .

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya :— Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya was first published by Pampanini (1917), who provided a short diagnosis. Subsequently, Pampanini (1927: 330) provided a short description of this form and discussed three further names from a taxonomic point of view [“ S. nitida var. typica “, S. caerulea var. nitida (Ten.) Fiori (1923: 116) , and S. robusta ]. According to Pampanini (1927: 331), “ S. nitida var. typica Beck ”, and “ S. caerulea var. nitida Fiori ” were both to be regarded as pro parte synonyms of S. nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya . There are two specimens available at FI (barcodes 007337 and 007338; images available, respectively, at http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/img_450/FI007337.jpg, and http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/img_450/FI007338.jpg), which bear the name S. nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya , each bearing plants collected on May 2, 1912 (as indicated on the original labels) on “Borgo Ornella”, a site belonging to the administrative territory of the Republic of San Marino. These specimens are syntypes (Art. 9.6 of the ICN). We here designate FI007337 as the lectotype of the name S. nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya . On the basis of this lectotype and the present state of knowledge in Sesleria , this name is heterotypic synonym of S. italica (Pamp.) Ujhelyi.

= Sesleria nitida Ten. var. tenoreana f. tenoreana Pampanini (1917: 4) .

Type:— REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO, Mt. Titano , edge of shrubs and semimesophilous grasslands of Festuco-Brometea, 30 April 2019, Di Pietro et Fortini s.n. (neotype, designated here, HFLA4884 !, Fig. 1 ) .

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. tenoreana : — Pampanini (1917) validly described Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana only by a short diagnosis (”Culmi superne plus minusve scabri; arista paleam dimidiam vel usque ¾ subaequans; paniculum ovatum vel ovato-cylindricum usque cylindricum, usque ( f. genuina ) 2 ½ cm. longum et 1 cm. latum”), and dedicated it to the Italian botanist Michele Tenore. Subsequently Pampanini (1927: 329) treated Tenore’s Sesleria nitida ( Tenore 1831: 36) as a synonym of S. nitida var. tenoreana and under this name, he listed the records of S. nitida Ten. reported in Gussone (1827: 88), Parlatore (1848: 313), Steudel (1855: 296), and Lojacono- Pojero (1908–1909: 262). Only in relation to Gussone’s concept of S. nitida Ten. Pampanini (1927) added further considerations which led him to classify it only as a pro parte synonym of S. nitida var. tenoreana (“Guss., Fl. sic. prodr. I, 88 [p. p.])” and to propose a new form ( S. nitida var. tenoreana f. genuina —see discussion below). In addition, Pampanini (1927: 330) listed two further pro parte synonyms of S. nitida var. tenoreana , namely S. caerulea var. “ε” [i.e. an unnamed variety considered by Bertoloni (1833: 504), who in turn, quoted Tenore’s S. nitida ( Tenore 1815: 57) under this variety], and S. argentea var. nitida Ascherson & Graebner (1900: 315) . Note that Ascherson & Graebner (1900) cited Tenore (1815).

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. genuina :— The form S. nitida var. tenoreana f. genuina clearly refers to the autonym S. nitida var. tenoreana f. tenoreana . Pampanini (1917) reported “ Sesleria nitida Ten. var. tenoreana Pamp. «Culmi superne plus minusve scabri ... ( f. genuina ) 2 ½ cm. longum et 1 cm. latum»”. This name is to be considered as not validly published (Art. 24.3 of ICN). Subsequently, Pampanini (1927: 300) gave the following three names as synonyms for his “ f. genuina ”: Sesleria cylindrica sensu Visiani (1872: 86) , S. nitida sensu Gussone (1827: 88) , and S. caerulea var. “ε” published in Bertoloni (1833: 504) (the latter two names were quoted as pro parte synonyms). S. cylindrica ( Balbis 1801: 86) Candolle in Lamarck & Candolle (1806: 134) is currently considered a heterotypic synonym of S. argentea (see Alonso et al. 2016: 194). However, on the basis of Pampanini’s “ f. genuina ” descriptions ( Pampanini 1917: 4, Pampanini 1927: 300), it is unlikely that this form could be assigned to the group S. argentea - S. autumnalis , due its too short spike (less than 2.5 cm). At the same time, the reference to S. cylindrica as published in Visiani (1872), which suggests a similarity to S. argentea (= S. cylindrica ), is somewhat misleading. In fact, the species listed in Visiani’s work as S. cylindrica is described as a plant flowering in early spring, whereas S. argentea normally blooms in late summer and early autumn. According to the present state of knowledge about Sesleria it is likely that Visiani (1872) referred to S. robusta Schott, Nyman & Kotschy (1854: 1) , a Balkan species that does not occur in Italy ( Redžić 2003, Bartolucci et al. 2018, Kuzmanović et al. 2017). Despite the fact that Ujhelyi (1940: 69) accepted the taxon S. nitida var. tenoreana s.str. as a variety of S. argentea , our opinion is that that the Pampanini’s concept of S. nitida var. tenoreana “ f. genuina ” should be applied to a species from the group S. nitida - S. italica . However, S. nitida var. tenoreana f. tenoreana ( S. nitida var. tenoreana “ f. genuina ”) has not yet been typified. Unfortunately, we did not trace a specimen used by Pampanini (1917: 4) to describe his taxon, and a neotype must be selected (Art. 9.8 of the ICN). We here designate a specimen collected at Mt. Titano (locus classicus of Pampanini’s taxon) and preserved at HFLA (barcode HFLA4884) ( Fig. 1 ).

= Sesleria nitida Ten. var. tenoreana f. visianii Pampanini (1917: 4) .

Type :— REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO. Mount Titano, 04 May 1812, Pampanini 662 (lectotype, designated here, FI 051890!; Fig. 2 ) .

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. visianii :—This form was proposed by Pampanini (1917) by an extremely short diagnosis (“Culmi leves”). Subsequently, Pampanini (1927: 330) included the validly published Visiani’s combination (see Visiani 1872: 20) as a synonym for the name Sesleria argentea var. nitida (Ten.) Visiani (1872: 20) . It is probable that Pampanini (1917: 4, 1927: 300) used the epithet “ visianii ” (which is clearly dedicated to R. De Visiani) to specify that he considered the Visiani’s concept of S. nitida as different from Tenore’s original concept of S. nitida . In order to typify Pampanini’s name S. nitida var. tenoreana f. visianii , we searched for possible original material either in Pampanini’s collection (preserved at FI) or in the Visiani’s collection (preserved at at PAD). We found three sheets, two of them at FI (barcodes FI051890 and FI051892) and one at PAD (barcode PAD-HD00956).

The two specimens deposited at FI, which belong to two different collection numbers (i.e. 662 and 663), bear plants that were collected by R. Pampanini on “ M. Titano [Mount Titano], vers. or. [= “eastern slope”] 4 Maggio 1912 ” (original label). The locality of the collection corresponds to that indicated by Pampanini (1917) in the title of his work (“ Piante nuove della Repubblica di San Marino” = Plants new for the San Marino Republic ”), Mount Titano , with its basal part, covers approximately the entire territory of San Marino. It is to be noted, that the date of collection of the specimens is prior than the date of publication (1912 vs. 1917). Accordingly, these two specimens are to be considered as original material used by R. Pampanini to describe f. visianii .

The specimen at PAD bears pieces of a plant probably belonging to the same individual (M. Clementi pers. comm.) and two labels [“ N. 64 da restituirsi | 1 Sesleria cylindrica DC. | 25 apr. | inter rupium fissuras | Lusus Sesleria caeruleae | Prico [today Priko, a district of the city of Omiš ( Croatia)]” (a Bertoloni’s handwriting, on the left of the sheet), and “FLORA DALMATICA | Sesleria argentea Savi —β nitida Vis | Visiani” (on the center-bottom of the sheet)]. In Visiani’s correspondence deposited at PAD there is a letter sent by A. Bertoloni to Visiani from 1826, in which the following sentence is reported: “68. Sesleria ?—È la Sesleria tenuifolia Schrad. , ma io sospetto che questa sia una delle tante varietà della Sesleria caerulea . Bisogna coltivarla” (= “68. Sesleria ?—This is Sesleria tenuifolia Schrad. , but I suspect that this is one of the different varieties of Sesleria caerulea . It must be cultivated”). As already mentioned, the label on the PAD specimen was numbered “ 64 ”, and not “68”, as reported in the letter from Bertoloni. On the other hand, the plant no. 64 discussed by Bertoloni is a Koeleria species. Therefore, it is conceivable that Bertoloni made a mistake when citing the specimen number (M. Clementi pers. comm.). It is also conceivable that Pampanini had the opportunity to observe the material preserved in the Paduan herbarium (M. Clementi pers. comm.), but we cannot be sure that he effectively examined this “ N. 64 ” specimen. Consequently, there is no certainty that this specimen from PAD is part of the original material for the name Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. visianii , so we have preferred to exclude it from being eligible as a lectotype.

All things considered, we here designate the specimen FI051890 as the lectotype of the name Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. visianii ( Fig. 2 ). Concerning the identity of this specimen, the morphological characteristics (spike length and width, broad leaves) and the place of collection ( San Marino) suggest to synonymise S. nitida var. tenoreana f. visianii with S. italica as already annotated in the revision label by J. Uhjelyi (see also Ujhelyi 1959: 604).

=? Sesleria nitida var. pulchella Chiosi (1930: 634) ≡ Sesleria pulchella (Chiosi) Ubaldi (2017: 41) .

Type:— ITALY, Tuscany: Alpe della Luna , da Motolano a Colcellalto, Chiosi 32 (holotype, FI007336!, image of the holotype available at http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/img72/FI007336.jpg) .

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. pulchella :— Chiosi (1930) was the first author after Pampanini (1927) to study the group of Sesleria nitida in the northern Apennines and surrounding areas. In his paper, Chiosi (1930) recognized all the varieties and forms previously proposed by Pampanini (1927) and added three further names: S. nitida var. hercegovina , S. nitida var. sancti-marini f. montenegrina ( Beck 1904: 437) Chiosi (1930: 635) , and S. nitida var. pulchella Chiosi (1930: 634) . According to Chiosi (1930), S. nitida var. pulchella morphologically resembled S. nitida var. sancti-marini f. montenegrina , and differed mainly by a shorter stem (9–11 cm vs. 20–25 cm) and shorter spikes (6–8 mm vs. 1.1–2.2 cm). In addition to the diagnosis, Chiosi (1930) reported the following sentence: Habitat, “ Habitat in «Alpe della Luna» prope «Motolano» et «Colcellalto». Legi 15 Maji 1929 ”. A sheet was found at FI (barcode FI007336) bearing three plants (same gathering) and the original label which perfectly matches the data reported in the protologue. We consider the specimen FI007336 as the holotype of the name S. nitida var. pulchella . Despite the extremely small size of the specimens appearing on the holotype sheet, we have doubts that the aforementioned two characters identified by Chiosi can be considered diagnostic in a taxonomic key. Dwarf forms of specimens of the group S. argentea are commonly found in nature, especially in environmental situations of rocky habitats or nutrient-poor substrates. Ubaldi (2016) reported that his first attempt to collect specimens of S. nitida var. pulchella in its locus classicus was not successful, due to the fact that dwarf individuals were completely absent. Subsequently, Ubaldi (2017) proposed to raise the Chiosi’s variety at the rank of species as S. pulchella (Chiosi) Ubaldi. This choice was accepted in Bartolucci et al. (2018). However, the morphological comparison between the only two herbarium specimens cited by Ubaldi (2017) as S. pulchella (i.e. FI0022 holotype collected by Chiosi and one specimen collected by Ubaldi in 2016) show significant differences concerning the plant size and the length and width of basal leaves. Observations made on three other specimens [from Bocca Trabaria (Tuscany region), Gattara (Emilia Romagna region), and Parchiule (Marche region)], whose images were kindly provided to us by Prof. Ubaldi, confirmed that only the original specimen (holotype) collected by Chiosi exhibits absolutely tiny dimensions, while all the specimens collected by Ubaldi are always exceeding 35–40 cm. Moreover, the spike morphology of these specimens is comparable to that of S. italica . Therefore, the only morphological characteristic usable to distinguish S. pulchella from S. italica would seem the reduced length of basal and stem leaves. In order to collect presumably S. pulchella living individuals, we conducted a field investigation in the locus classicus of the species (Motolano di Sestino) and in the surrounding areas. Unfortunately, we were not able to find specimens similar to the original Chiosi’s specimens, while all the populations observed and the specimens collected in this area (currently deposited in the HFLA) showed morphological characteristics typical of S. italica . Accordingly, we cannot establish here whether S. pulchella is to be considered a taxon to be accepted at a specific level, or whether, as assumed by Ubaldi (2017), it may be the result of hybridisation between S. italica and S. pichiana , or whether it falls within the morphological variability of S. italica . The number of specimens currently available for biometric studies, which are necessary to outline the range of morphological variability of this presumed species, is far too small. A sampling protocol that takes into account several populations and including measurements on at least 15–20 individuals per population will allow to obtain the necessary information in order to establish S. pulchella taxonomic identity.

= Sesleria feretrana Ubaldi in Ubaldi & Garavaglia (2018: 31–32).

Type:— ITALY. Emilia-Romagna: Lungo la strada da Novafeltria a Talamello (provincia Rimini, regione Emilia-Romagna) in pratelli aridi a Bromus erectus , 6 September 1987, Ubaldi s.n. (holotype, FI018429!, image of the holotype available at http://parlatore.msn. unifi.it/img_450/FI018429.jpg) .

Notes on Sesleria feretrana :— Ubaldi & Garavaglia (2018) proposed this new species from some localities of Montefeltro area (Province of Rimini, Emilia Romagna region) and described it as an intermediate form between Sesleria nitida and S. pulchella (Chiosi) Ubaldi. The morphological characters that Ubaldi & Garavaglia (2018) considered as diagnostic for identifying this taxon are the following: plant height, length of the leaf blade, and length of the awns of both glumes and lemmas. In order to check the morphological variability of presumed S. feretrana within its populations and to identify its ecological features, we conducted field-collections of Sesleria specimens not only within the locus classicus of S. feretrana but also in other sites throughout the entire Montefeltro area during the spring of 2018 (all specimens collected are deposited in HFLA). What we observed from the analysis of the collected specimens was a great variability of all the aforementioned diagnostic characters both within and among populations. This variability, however, was found to be consistent with that already known for S. italica . Moreover, the current geographical range of S. feretrana is completely included in that of S. italica and the ecological and coenological features of these two species are very similar. Accordingly, S. feretrana is here considered as a synonym of S. italica .

= Sesleria italica (Pamp.) Ujhelyi subsp. mariculensis Ubaldi (2016: 125) .

Type ( Ubaldi 2016: 125, Fig. 5):— ITALY. Marche, Pesaro-Urbino Province, Mount Simoncello , cenge erbose del versante est, 1150 m elevation, 31 May 1970, Ubaldi s.n. (holotype, BOLO!) .

Notes on Sesleria italica subsp. mariculensis :— Ubaldi (2016) described Sesleria italica subsp. mariculensis from Mount Simoncello (Marche region, Central Italy). According to the original diagnosis, this taxon differs from S. italica subsp. italica by having broader basal leaves, longer uppermost culm leaf blade and longer spikes. The author also briefly discussed S. nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya , the taxon previously described by Pampanini (1927: 330), and stressed its morphological similarity with S. italica subsp. mariculensis , but without drawing taxonomic conclusions. It seems plausible that the author considered the form proposed by Pampanini (1927) as a heterotypic synonym of his S. italica subsp. mariculensis . From a nomenclatural point of view, Pampanini’s S. nitida var. tenoreana f. macrostachya is valid and legitimate. On the basis of the morphological characteristics used by the author to identify S. italica subsp. mariculensis , the geographical distribution of the latter taxon, and the observation of its holotype, it would seem that S. italica subsp. mariculensis is totally included in the range of morphological variability of S. italica . Ubaldi (2016) did not carried out biometric comparisons between the diagnostic characters of his new subspecies and those of subspecies italica . Moreover, the number of specimens observed by the author is very low if aimed at the description of a new taxon. Considering all this, we do not regard S. italica subsp. mariculensis as a taxon separate from S. italica .

= Sesleria nitida Ten. var. candae Ubaldi & Garavaglia (2018: 33) .

Type ( Ubaldi 2016: 125):— ITALY. Tuscany, Florence Province, Mount Canda, 21 April 2015, Garavaglia s.n. (holotype, FI057372!, image of the holotype available at http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/img72/FI057372.jpg) .

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. candae :—This variety (whose epithet comes from Mount Canda, located in the Province of Florence, Tuscany region) was proposed by Ubaldi & Garavaglia (2018) to distinguish forms of Sesleria nitida with glaucous leaves, more or less compressed stem (upper part) and short inflorescences, glumes, and lemmas. When observing some of the morphological characters of the holotype, such as the small size of the spikelets and the short lemma’s awns there would seem to be no doubt that the var. candae should be included within the morphological range of S. italica (the status of heterotypic synonym is here proposed). However, further investigations (e.g. biometric and molecular studies) are necessary to confirm this preliminary hypothesis.

— Sesleria nitida Ten. var. tenoreana f. intermedia sensu Pampanini (1927: 331) .

Notes on Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. intermedia sensu Pampanini :— Pampanini (1927: 331), in his work on the populations of Sesleria nitida found on Mt. Titano ( Republic of San Marino), listed the Halácsy’s var. brevidentata and reported the following quotation after this name: “f. [form] intermedia Pamp., comb. n. [= combinatio nova] | SESLERIA NITIDA var. INTERMEDIA Beck ... [p.p.] (1903) ... (1904)”. The statement “comb. n.” suggests the intention of Pampanini (1927) to propose a nomenclatural change to Beck’s var. intermedia . Note that Pampanini (1927) cited var. intermedia as a pro parte synonym. However, he did not explicitly excluded the type of var. intermedia . Consequently, Pampanini’s f. intermedia is should actually be considered as a nomenclatural change (see Art. 52.2 Ex. 5 of ICN). The typification of Beck’s var. intermedia is a topic that will be discussed later in the paper. However, based on the lectotype of var. intermedia (deposited at PRC, see below under the paragraph “ Sesleria nitida var. intermendia ”) Beck’s taxon is to be referred to S. robusta , a species that does not occur in Italy. In contrast, Pampanini’s concept of S. nitida var. tenoreana f. intermedia is likely to be referred to S. italica , at least on the basis of Pampanini’s short original description of the spike characters (“PANICULUM cylindricum, 2–4 cm longum et 8– 10 m. latum”).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Neotype of Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. tenoreana (HFLA4884!).

FIGURE 2. Lectotype of Sesleria nitida var. tenoreana f. visianii (FI051890!).