Jarosław Proćków

Morphological Variability in Epipactis purpurata s. stricto (Orchidaceae) — An Analysis Based on Herbarium Material and Field Observations

A wide range of phenotypic variability in the orchid Epipactis purpurata s. stricto was found based on analysis of herbarium material and field research. Twenty-three biometric features were analysed. New diagnostically important features of gynostemium as well as of petal and sepal sizes and colours were established. Thus E. purpurata s. stricto is redescribed, clarifying the taxonomic importance of several morphological features.

Juncus quartinianus (Juncaceae, sect. Ozophyllum): A Neglected Species from the Horn of Africa and Its Re-Description Based on Morphological SEM Studies

Juncus quartinianus (Juncaceae sect. Ozophyllum) was described by Richard in 1851 from Ethiopia. Some authors have treated this species as a synonym of J. fontanesii and others as a synonym of J. oxycarpus. Based on morphological analyses of flowers, fruit and seeds, we propose to restore J. quartinianus as a distinct species from both these taxa. Its detailed re-description and an identification key to the morphologically similar species of Juncus sect. Ozophyllum are provided.

Climatic niche of Selinum alatum (Apiaceae, Selineae), a new invasive plant species in Central Europe and its alterations according to the climate change scenarios: Are the European mountains threatened by invasion?

In recent years, a few established populations of Selinum alatum have been found in the Eastern Carpathians outside its native range that is the Caucasus and the Armenian Highlands. The species is spreading predominantly in Poland where it can outcompete native plants in certain cases. This study addresses a potential climatic niche of the plant with the special aims to illuminate future spreading and indicate areas suitable for invasion. Our results show that the extent of the favourable habitat of the species is broader than currently known. This suggests that the plant has the ability to become a potential new element in some semi-natural or disturbed ecosystems associated with mountainous areas, especially in Central and Southern Europe. Future (2070) models mostly rendered similar suitability maps, but showed slight differences over particular areas and a contraction of suitable habitats, mainly in the northern part of the non-native range.

204) Proposal to permit supersession of a new epitype when a previously designated epitype is rediscovered

The concept of an epitype was established by the Tokyo Code (ICBN, Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994), thus it has been in use for about 20 years. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon (Art. 9.8). According to the Melbourne Code (ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) the author who first designates an epitype must be followed, and a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed (Art. 9.20). In the case of the designation of a lectotype or neotype that choice is superseded if the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered (Art. 9.19). However, the Code does not permit explicitly the supersession of a new epitype in the case when a previously designated epitype is rediscovered. As the usage of epitypes is rather limited at the moment, there probably have not been many cases when the epitype has been lost and later rediscovered. Nevertheless, such situations could occur over time more and more frequently. It is also obvious that the first epitype selected is the most important because of Art. 9.20 of the Code (i.e., “the author who first designates an epitype must be followed”). To be better prepared for such occurrence (when the epitype is rediscovered) we therefore make the following proposal:

260) Proposal to clarify and enhance Article 9.14 of the Code with respect to the exigencies of subsequent typifications

Article 9.11 of the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) rules: “[...] when the material designated as type is found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype [...] as a substitute for it may be designated.” In addition, Art. 9.14 rules: “When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.11), the name must remain attached to the part (specimen as defined in Art. 8.2) that corresponds most nearly with the original description or diagnosis.” Finally, Art. 9.19 rules: “The author who first designates [...] a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–9.13 must be followed, but that choice is superseded if [...] (c) it is contrary to Art. 9.14.” In a case where a holotype, lectotype, or neotype (that is not an illustration) contains parts belonging to more than one taxon, attaching the name to the appropriate specimen, as required by Art. 9.14, is achieved by lectotypification (in the case of a holotype) or by subsequent lectotypification or neotypification in the case of a lectotype or neotype, respectively. However, there is no such wording in Art. 9.14. There is a somewhat analogous situation in Art. 9.17, where the procedure that may be followed is clearly stated: “A designation of a lectotype or neotype that later is found to refer to a single gathering but to more than one specimen [...] may be further narrowed to a single one of these specimens by way of a subsequent lectotypification or neotypification.” The case of Art. 9.14 is even more important than that of Art. 9.17 because a type specimen must not contain parts belonging to more than one taxon. In such a case the subsequent typification is crucial to maintain nomenclatural stability. Therefore, in order to clarify and enhance Art. 9.14, we propose to supplement it with the following wording:

205) Proposal to require precedence of isoepitypes in designating a replacement epitype

According to the Melbourne Code (ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), the author who first designates an epitype must be followed, and a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed (Art. 9.20). However, there is no rule in the Code on how to designate the replacement epitype in such a case. It means that anyone can select any specimen for this purpose. If we accept that the first epitype selected is the most important (i.e. “the author who first designates an epitype must be followed”), it follows that isoepitypes, if such exist, should be given precedence in designating a replacement epitype. A similar situation is required in the procedure of lectotype designation, in which “an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype if such exists”, or otherwise the lectotype must be chosen “from among the paratypes if such exist” (see Art. 9.12). We therefore make the following proposal to establish the precedence of any isoepitypes in replacement epitypification: (205) Amend Art. 9.20 as follows (new text in bold): “9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.9 and 7.10) an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed, in which case the replacement epitype must be designated from among the isoepitypes, if such exist. A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.19, or in the case of a neotype with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).”

259) Proposal to require precedence of isolectotypes when a previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed

According to Art. 9.11 of the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), a lectotype may be designated in the following three cases: (1) if no holotype was indicated by the author of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon; (2) when the holotype or previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed; or (3) when the material designated as type is found to belong to more than one taxon. According to Art. 9.19, the author who first designates a lectotype must be followed (so long as the exceptions stipulated in Art. 9.19 do not apply). Moreover, in Art. 9.12 there are clear rules on precedence in designating a lectotype: “9.12. In lectotype designation an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype (duplicate of syntype) is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the paratypes if such exist. If no cited specimens exist, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist.” We propose that in the case when a previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed, the replacement lectotype must be designated from among the isolectotypes (duplicates of lectotypes), if such exist, or otherwise according to Art. 9.12 (see above). In this way, existing isolectotypes have precedence over all other kinds of types and other original material listed in sequence in Art. 9.12. The proposed procedure parallels the requirement to designate a lectotype firstly from among isotypes, if such exist (Art. 9.12) and accords with the rule that the author who first designates a lectotype must be followed (Art. 9.19). This proposal will strengthen nomenclatural stability, as the replacement lectotype will be a duplicate specimen (if such exists) of the previous lectotype. This proposal also parallels Prop. 045 (Ferrer-Gallego & al. in Taxon 64: 650. 2015), in which a substitute neotype must be designated firstly from among isoneotypes, if such exist.