taxonID	type	description	language	source
7274B4185C2E3C6C7B1BFE8EFCA2FB97.taxon	materials_examined	Lectotypus (designated here): with three labels: ITALY: A) “ Planta Sicula / Festuca duriuscula L. var. elata / In pratis montosis – Palermo alla / Pizzuta. Maio m. / Leg. Todaro [from Todaro’s hand] ” s. d., s. n.; B) “ F. duriuscula / v. laevis m. / det. Hackel [from Hackel’s hand] ”; C) “ Festuca [pr.] laevis (Hack.) Nym. Consp. / var. laevis / F. circummediterranea Patzke var. circumm. / III. 65 / XII 75 [from Markgraf-Dannenberg’s hand] / det. I. Markgraf-Dannenberg [pr.] ” (W!).	en	Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio, Signorini, Maria Adele (2012): Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group. Candollea 67 (2): 221-228, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v672a2
7274B4185C2E3C6C7B1BFE8EFCA2FB97.taxon	discussion	HACKEL (1881: 405) published the name F. ovina subsp. laevis. According to MCNEILL & al. (2006, art. 32.1, 41.3), this name is not validly published in this paper, because it is accompanied neither by a description, nor by a reference to a previously published description; consequently, even this infraspecific taxon has no taxonomic “ status ”. Within this invalid “ subsp. laevis ”, HACKEL (1881: 405) reports six different varieties. Among these, a “ var. laevis ” is described, for which he reports the following distribution: “ Gebirge Siciliens, Neapol., nördl. Appenninen, Seealpen, Sierra do Alcoy in SO. - Spanien; Daya in Algier; Kreta. ” A reference to “ Guss. Fl. sic. ” is also given. Actually, even the name F. ovina var. laevis must be regarded as not validly published, as it lacks either a description or a reference to a previously published description (MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 32.1, 41.3). As a matter of fact, no description is reported, and even the reference to “ Guss. Fl. sic. ” is not “ a clear indication ” (M CNEILL & al., 2006, art. 32.6), as it is not clear whether Hackel refers to G USSONE (1827: 102) or to GUSSONE (1843: 86), and it must be reminded that in the two publications two different descriptions and systematic circumscriptions for the species are reported. According to the above considerations, the name F. ovina subsp. laevi s was validly published only in H ACKEL (1882), where the name of this taxon is accompanied by a short diagnosis in the identification key (HACKEL 1882: 84), by a whole description (HACKEL, 1882: 107) and by a figure showing the section of a leaf blade (HACKEL 1882: tab. III, fig. 7). Within this subspecies, H ACKEL (1882: 108 - 112) describes five varieties and among these a “ var. genuina ” HACKEL (1882: 108 - 110). This last includes five subvarieties, and among these a “ subvar. α typica ” (HACKEL, 1882: 109). Neither F. ovina var. genuina nor F. ovina subvar. typica are validly published here, as both infraspecific epithets are not allowed by MCNEILL & al., 2006 (art. 24.3). Yet, the name F. ovina var. laevis is validly published in HACKEL (1882: 84) in the identification key, where the epithet is correct and the name is accompanied by a short diagnosis. Moreover, in the index (HACKEL 1882: 213) the name “ F. ovina ssp. laevis m. 107 ” is reported, followed by “ v. laevis m. 108 ”. This also means that var. laevis of both the key (HACKEL, 1882: 84) and the index (HACKEL, 1882: 213) exactly corresponds to the var. genuina invalidly described in H ACKEL (1882: 108). Consequently, even the full description and all the other features reported in the monograph for this var. genuina (HACKEL, 1882: 108 - 110) are to be attributed to the validly published F. ovina var. laevis (HACKEL, 1882: 84, 107), including the following synonyms: “ F. duriuscula Guss. Prodr. Fl. sic. 102 (1827). – Synops. 86 (1842). Parl. Fl. palerm. 198 (1845) non L. ” (HACKEL, 1882: 109), and this distribution area: “ In montibus Europae australis ” (HACKEL, 1882: 110). To be legitimate, these two infraspecific names are necessarily homotypic (MCNEILL & al., 2006, art 53.4). The lectotype here designated was chosen within the specimens hosted in W, where Hackel’s personal herbarium is kept; the label bears some notes handwritten by Hackel and all the morphological characters perfectly fit the original description. It appears to be a duplicate of the specimen “ TodaroFl. sic. exs nro. 444 ” collected by Todaro in Sicily and cited by Hackel in the protologue (sub “ subvar. α typica ”; HACKEL, 1882: 109).	en	Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio, Signorini, Maria Adele (2012): Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group. Candollea 67 (2): 221-228, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v672a2
7274B4185C283C6C7826FB61FA74FC26.taxon	discussion	Festuca ovina subsp. laevis was raised to the rank of species in NYMAN (1882: 828). The reference of NYMAN (1882: 828) to HACKEL (1882) with the mention of “ Hack. monogr. 107 ” is sufficient to validate the new combination. The name F. laevis (Hack.) Nyman is illegitimate, as this name has been validly published by Sprengel for a different taxon (F. laevis (Thunb.) Spreng., Syst. Veg. 1: 355. 1824). As a consequence, this name must be regarded as a later but illegitimate homonym. However, the name was validly published and retains the same type as F. ovina subsp. laevis Hack. The same combination was later published again by RICHTER (1890: 96), without any reference to Nyman, but with a clear reference to “ Hack. mon. p. 107. (p. 108) (1882.) ”, and is thus an isonym with no nomenclatural status (MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 6 note 2). The name ‘ Festuca circummediterranea’ as an avowed substitute for the name of the taxon at the specific rank was published for the first time by EHRENDORFER (1967: 90) and later again by EHRENDORFER (1973: 112). Actually, as both these names lack a full and direct reference to the place of valid publication of the replaced synonym including page reference and date, they must be regarded as not validly published (MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 33.4). Valid publication occurred with PATZKE (1974), thanks to the full and direct reference both to N YMAN (1882) and RICHTER (1890), which are both validly published names, even if illegitimate. PATZKE (1974) reports also a reference to HACKEL (1882), but not quite correctly, as he quotes “ F. ovina L. subsp. laevis var. genuina Hackel, Monogr. Fest. Eur. 108 (1882) ”. As stated above, this page is neither the place of valid publication of F. ovina subsp. laevis nor that of F. ovina var. laevis (H ACKEL, 1882: 84) respectively. The new name published by PATZKE (1974) obviously retains the same type of the name F. ovina subsp. laevis Hack., designed above in this paper. This name is currently adopted for this taxon in recent Floras of southern Europe and northern Africa (e. g. MARKGRAF- DANNNEBERG, 1980; FOGGI & MÜLLER, 2009 a-e).	en	Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio, Signorini, Maria Adele (2012): Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group. Candollea 67 (2): 221-228, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v672a2
7274B4185C283C6E7B1BFBBDFEF3F874.taxon	description	(Fig. 2).	en	Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio, Signorini, Maria Adele (2012): Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group. Candollea 67 (2): 221-228, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v672a2
7274B4185C283C6E7B1BFBBDFEF3F874.taxon	materials_examined	Neotypus (designated by ALEXEEV, 1973: 106): ITALY: “ Campania prope Sora, leg. Terracciano ”, s. d., Terracciano s. n. (LE [photo]!). Lectotypus (designated here for correction): with two labels: ITALY: A) “ Festuca duriuscula b. campana Terracc. [from Terracciano’s hand] / F. ov. v. laevis subv. campana Hack [from Hackel’s hand] / In montosis apricis aridis Campaniae; Nola / a Casamarciano. Maio 1871 / Terracc. [from Terracciano’s hand] ” s. n.; B) “ F. laevis (Hack.) Nym. Consp. / ssp. laevis / var. heldreichii (Hack.) / subv. campana (Terr.) Hack. / III. 65. [from Markgraf-Dannenberg’s hand] det. I. Markgraf-Dannenberg [pr.] ” (W!).	en	Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio, Signorini, Maria Adele (2012): Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group. Candollea 67 (2): 221-228, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v672a2
7274B4185C283C6E7B1BFBBDFEF3F874.taxon	discussion	TERRACCIANO (1872: 195) validly published a “ F. duriusculaLin. c. campana ”. The name lacks any indication of rank, but according to MCNEILL & al. (2006, art. 35.4), it must be regarded as a variety. The variety is described as “ foliislongis, glaucis, culmis prope basimincrassato-tuberosis ”. It was collected by Terracciano at “ Nolasui monti di Casamarciano ”, a locality near Neaples and Caserta. The name was typified by ALEXEEV (1973: 106) with a specimen housed in LE. Actually, on this lectotypification some major remarks are to be done. First of all, the specimen does not bear any note written in Nicola Terracciano’s own hand (for Terracciano’s handwriting, see SANTANGELO & al., 1995), neither is there any note showing that it was seen by him. Furthermore, the locality “ prope Sora ” (that is near a small town in the surroundings of Frosinone) reported on the label was not mentioned in the protologue (T ERRACCIANO, 1872). In short, the specimen cannot be regarded as strictly belonging to “ original material ”, as nothing shows that “ the description or diagnosis validating the name was based ” upon it (MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 9.2, note 2). Consequently, the use of the term “ lectotype ” by A LEXEEV (1973) should be considered an “ error to be corrected ” (MCNEILL & al., 2006, art. 9.8), as the specimen selected by him is not actually a lectotype, but a neotype. Furthermore, it must also be noted that the specimen does not fit the original description, as it lacks the diagnostic character “ culmis prope basim incrassato-tuberosis ” (i. e. “ culms swollen like tubers near the base ”). As a matter of fact, in the specimen the culms are entirely slender, even to the base. Searching for original Terracciano’s material, in NAP we could find two specimens collected at “ Casamarciano ”, the locality reported in the protologue. Both specimens bear labels with notes in Nicola Terracciano’s own hand and perfectly fit the original description of F. duriuscula var. campana. Unfortunately, neither of them shows labels or notes with the epithet “ campana ”, so they may not be considered as type material. In W, we found one more specimen from Hackel’s herbarium collected at Casamarciano, bearing a label handwritten by Terracciano where the full name of the new plant is reported: “ F. duriusculab. campana ”. We do not know how this specimen arrived in Wien: possibly it was sent to Hackel as a gift by Terracciano himself, or by a curator of NAP. It comes from the locus classicus and perfectly fits the description reported in the protologue, with the character “ culmisprope basimincrassato-tuberosis ” particularly evident. For these reasons, we propose to supersede Alexeev’s neotypification according to MCNEILL & al. (2006, art. 9.11, art. 9.17) and we designate this specimen as the lectotype of the name. This taxon was raised to the rank of species, F. campana (N. Terracc.) Alexeev, by ALEXEEV (1973: 105 - 106). Even at the rank of species, the name retains the same type designed by us for F. duriuscula var. campana. It can be added that a close analysis on this specimen showed that the swollen culms described in the protologue are actually galls due to an insect (Tetramesa cfr. brevicormis, Hymenoptera), which uses to lay eggs inside the stems of this plants.	en	Foggi, Bruno, Quercioli, Claudia, Gennai, Matilde, Nardi, Enio, Signorini, Maria Adele (2012): Lectotypification of taxa belonging to the “ Festuca circummediterranea ” group. Candollea 67 (2): 221-228, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v672a2
