Gentiana laciniata Kit. ex Kanitz, Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 12: 572 (1862)

Novikov, Andriy, 2023, An annotated nomenclatural checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians, Biodiversity Data Journal 11, pp. 103921-103921 : 103921

Gentiana laciniata Kit. ex Kanitz, Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 12: 572 (1862)

Ciminalis laciniata ≡ Ciminalis dshimilensis subsp. laciniata (Kit. ex Kanitz) Zuev, Turczaninowia 22(3): 147 (2019); GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/11090477; IPNI: https://ipni.org/n/77205255-1; WFO: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-1200008725; POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77205255-1

Gentiana laciniata ≡ Gentiana pyrenaica var. laciniata (Kit. ex Kanitz) Jáv., Shed. Fl. Hung. Exs. 8: Nr 786 (1927) *; POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/2933142-4

Gentiana laciniata = Gentiana vagneriana Janka, Oesterr. Bot. Z. 35: 109 (1885); POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/2933141-4; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91439#page/117

Gentiana laciniata = Gentiana wagneri Janka, Oesterr. Bot. Z. 35: 109 (1885) [nom. inval.; ortho. var.]; GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/7631972; WFO: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000698952; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91439#page/117

Gentiana laciniata - Gentiana pyrenaica auct. fl. ucrain. carpat., non L. *

Conservation status

In Ukraine - LC ( Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

The Red Book of Ukraine lists this species as rare ( Zyman and Shiyan 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

This species is of unclear taxonomy and chorology. In Ukraine, it is often equated with G. pyrenaica L. ( Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk 2015). Tutin (1972) also considered G. laciniata a synonym of G. pyrenaica . In GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7270399, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000698412, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/eea7efa0-65c0-4870-963d-199a771d42d8, accessed on 05.06.2023), G. laciniata is also regarded as a synonym of G. pyrenaica. However, Tzvelev (1978) argued its independent position due to differences in calyx morphology (3-5 mm long laciniate vs. 2-3 mm long ovate-laciniate segments) and distribution (Carpathian vs. Pyrenean). Kliment et al. (2016), based on the studies of Rybczyński et al. (2014), who showed its isolated position from G. pyrenaica , also concluded that G. laciniata is an independent species, an eastern Carpathian endemic narrowly distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Nevertheless, Zuev (2019) later reconsidered it as a subspecies within the genus Ciminalis , i.e. C. dshimilensis subsp. laciniata (Kit. ex Kanitz) Zuev and indicated a much wider, Caucasian-Balkanian-Carpathian, distribution. Zuev (2019) also proposed a new combination for G. pyrenaica - Ciminalis pyrenaica (L.) Zuev and placed it together with C. dshimilensis subsp. laciniata in the same section Crocus Pyrenaicae (Grossh.) Zuev. However, he did not indicate either distribution or morphological differences between C. pyrenaica and C. dshimilensis subsp. L.ciniata. Later, Favre et al. (2020) made several taxonomic recombinations, based on molecular data. In particular, Favre et al. (2020) placed G. pyrenaica into the section Gentiana Chondrophyllae Bunge (≡ Ciminalis sect. Chondrophyllae (Bunge) Zuev), but the position and identity of G. laciniata remained unclear. Hence, due to controversial opinions, the taxonomic status and chorology of G. laciniata require further discussion.