﻿Typification of 14 names in the Dianthusvirgineus group (Caryophyllaceae)

﻿Abstract The nomenclature of 14 taxa from Central and Southern Europe within the Dianthusvirgineus group is discussed. Dianthusaggericola Jord., D.collivagus Jord., D.consimilis Jord., D.orophilus Jord., D.saxicola Jord., D.juratensis Jord. are here lectotypified by specimens from the Jordan herbarium in LY, while D.godronianus Jord. by a specimen in P. Dianthussubacaulis Vill. is neotypified by a specimen collected on Mont Ventoux (S. France) and housed in MPU. For D.sylvestris Wulfen, a lectotype is here designated and its previous neotypification is discussed. Dianthuscaryophyllusvar.tenuifolius Moris, D.caryophyllusf.minor Moris and D.sylvestrisvar.garganicus Ten. are lectotypified by specimens housed in herbarium Moris (TO) and herbarium Tenore (K). Dianthusvirgineusvar.tergestinus Rchb. is lectotypified by a drawing from the Icones florae Germanicae & Helveticae, while D.contractusvar.evolutus Lojac. is neotypified by a specimen in P. For each taxon the currently accepted name is provided including new synonymies. The type indication is followed by nomenclatural and taxonomic notes, in which the original material found is commented and the reasons for the identification of the types are discussed.


Introduction
Dianthus L. (Caryophyllaceae) includes about 300 species from the temperate regions of the Old World, many of which are narrow endemics (Hardion et al. 2020). This genus still shows challenging systematics. A large part of recent taxonomic research, in fact, has been focused on the description of new taxa. Since 2000, 64 new species and subspecies have been described for the Euro-Mediterranean area, and a total of 98 new names have been published (IPNI 2021). Conversely, the taxonomic contributions on Dianthus that have taken into consideration groups of species with statistical analyses of morphological data or molecular investigations are very few (Domina et al. 2017;Hardion et al. 2020). Furthermore, the genus-level taxonomic treatments date back to more than 50 years ago (Williams 1890(Williams , 1893Pax and Hoffmann 1934;Reeve 1967), and the recently published treatments of Dianthus in national flora (Bernal et al. 1990;Tison and de Foucault 2014;Vangjeli 2015;Brullo and Guarino 2017;Nikolić 2020) have not brought any significant change to the taxonomy of this genus. In several cases, the nomenclatural types for these taxa are not yet designated (Domina & al. 2021). This created a situation of taxonomic uncertainty. Dianthus is an interesting genus, both from a biological and economical point of view (Hardion et al. 2020). Hence, an integrated approach to the taxonomy of this genus is needed.
The D. virgineus L. group can be considered as one of the richest and most complex in the genus. Many taxa have been described from Central and Southern Europe, albeit their actual taxonomical value is often doubtful. The genus has undergone extensive taxonomic investigations since the 18 th century (Smith 1794), but in many cases the original material used for the description of the taxa is not known and the nomenclatural types have not been designated yet. The lectotype of Dianthus virgineus L., the oldest available name that applies to wild plants in this group, has been designated only recently (Domina et al. 2021). The nomenclature and morphology of the large part of taxa described from Southern Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily have been investigated by . Other typifications were published by Camarda and Corrias (1987), Brullo et al. (2000), Arrigoni (2006), and Clementi et al. (2015). However, most of the taxa described in this group are still to be investigated.
In this study, the nomenclature of 14 taxa is discussed: As part of an ongoing project aimed to push forward the taxonomic knowledge on selected genera of the Italian vascular flora, this study aims to lay the foundations for further taxonomic investigations by an integrated approach based on morphometric and molecular data (Domina et al. 2021;Giacò et al. 2021).

Material and methods
We examined the scientific literature for the effective place of publication of surveyed Dianthus names described from Central and South Europe. The bibliographic data was searched in the available digital sources and in the libraries of the European institutions, while the original material of the investigated species was searched in the main European herbaria: B, C, FI, G, K, MA, MPU, NAP, P, PAL, RAB, RO, TO, W, WU, and ZA; herbarium acronyms follow Thiers (2021). A start-up online screening was possible thanks to digital herbarium specimens' images provided by GBIF (https://www.gbif.org), Jstor (http://plants.jstor.org), and ReColNat (https://www.recolnat.org/fr/). More thorough investigations were conducted in the Jordan herbarium at LY. The articles of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (hereafter ICN) follow Turland et al. (2019). Until more in-depth, integrated morphometric, genetic, karyological, and ecological information comes to light, our judgments should be considered provisionally accepted, according to current knowledge. In this group, the characters that have been proven to best discriminate species (Bacchetta et al. 2010) are: leaf length and width, number of flowers per scape, shape and length of outer and inner bracts. These characters have been used to check the morphological features of the selected types. The anther and petal length have been proposed as additional discriminant characters, but these can be easily appreciated on fresh plants and not on herbarium samples. No other original material was found in the surveyed herbaria. According to the label, this plant was originally collected in Reculet and then grown in Jordan's garden, where it was collected in July. As a matter of fact, besides his huge herbarium and library, Alexis Jordan owned a one-hectare experimental garden. We know that he used it to sow most species every year, while maintaining alive perennial ones, and that he regularly made herbarium sheets from these cultivated plants. In this context, the notion of original material requires particular attention (Thiébaut and Tison 2016).

Dianthus aggericola
The lectotype designated here matches the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered a heterotypic synonym of D. godronianus Jord. in Kerguélen (1993), in turn, currently considered a heterotypic synonym of D. virgineus (Domina et al. 2021). The lectotype of D. aggericola and that of D. virgineus, have the same leaf length and width, uniflowered scapes, the same length and shape of outer and inner bracts, the same calyx length and shape. We, therefore, confirm this synonymy. Three herbarium sheets are kept in TO, with several individuals each. All three specimens bear labels handwritten by Moris but lack the year of collection. Two of them come from generic localities ("in arenis maritimis" and "in collibus"), while one is from Belvì in the centre of Sardinia (Nuoro). All the specimens are complete and in good condition but refer to different collections: two specimens have been collected in inner localities, whereas another one comes from the coast. Moris reports that the scape bears a single flower and that another taxon (D. caryophyllus var. tenuifolius f. minor) grows in arenosis maritimis [sandy coast]. Thus, here we propose the specimen from Belvì as lectotype, despite not being dated, assuming that the herbarium in TO hosts the original material by Moris as already done by Arrigoni (1979), Rizzotto (1989), Escobar García et al. (2010) in other similar cases, Based on the specimen in TO coming from the coast (referring actually to f. minor), Valsecchi (1985), and then Bacchetta et al. (2010), refer D. caryophyllus var. tenuifolius to D. morisianus Vals. Based on the diagnosis and the lectotype designated here, D. caryophyllus var. tenuifolius does not belong to D. morisianus. The former taxon shows short scapes bearing one or few flowers and epicalyx scales with mucro 0.5-1.5 mm long, while the latter shows longer multiflowered scapes with epicalyx scales with mucro 2.0-3.5 mm long. This interpretation agrees with Arrigoni (2010). According to the lectotype of D. caryophyllus var. tenuifolius, which shows woody stocks contracted with branches, epicalyx scales with an evident mucro, and small calyx, this taxon is a heterotypic synonym of D. genargenteus Bacch., Brullo The selected specimen, uniflorous, has fixed seven portions of plants whose leaves and flower scapes are smaller than those of the typical form. All other characters of the flowers correctly match the protologue. This taxon is a heterotypic synonym of D. morisianus, a species described by Valsecchi (1985) for the same area and habitat (Peruzzi et al. 2015), that shows the same leaf length and width and, albeit with multiflowered scapes, the same length and shape of outer and inner bracts, and the same calyx length and shape. Other six specimens collected by Jordan are preserved at LY, but they are not original material, since they are lacking a date or reporting dates later than the protologue.

Dianthus collivagus
The lectotype designated here matches the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered as a heterotypic synonym of D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris in Kerguélen (1993). The lectotype of D. collivagus, concerning the shape of calyx teeth, is very similar to the lectotype of D. inodorus (L.) Gaertn., which in turn is currently included within the variability of D. sylvestris (Domina et al. 2021). The lectotype designated here matches the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered as a heterotypic synonym of D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris in Kerguélen (1993). The lectotype of D. consimilis, concerning the shape of calyx teeth, is very similar to the lectotype of D. inodorus (L.) Gaertn., which, in turn, is currently included within the variability of D. sylvestris (Domina et al. 2021 Note. Neither the original material nor traces of this taxon were found in the herbaria consulted and among the documents accompanying the centuries distributed by Lojacono (Aghababyan et al. 2012;Domina et al. 2014). We chose to designate as a neotype the single specimen found, which is at least collected by Lojacono.

Dianthus consimilis
The neotype designated here matches the protologue and allows to consider this name as an heterotypic synonym of D. arrostoi C.Presl. Compared to the lectotype of D. contractus designated by Bacchetta et al. (2010: 151: s.l., s.d., Jan, NAP-GUSS!), and to the lectotype of D. arrostoi designated by Camarda and Corrias (1987: 417), this variety differs only by the more elongated scapes.  Godron (1847Godron ( , 1848 to D. virgineus L. actually represent a different species, which he renamed D. godronianus. According to Godron (1848), this species grows in the surroundings of Montpellier, South France, and Corsica. A duplicate of the collection no. 959 by Soleirol, explicitly cited as seen by Godron (1848), was chosen as lectotype.

Dianthus godronianus
This specimen corresponds with the protologue and with the current application of the name. In Kerguélen (1993), this taxon is considered accepted at varietal rank (D. sylvestris subsp. longicaulis var. godronianus). In Jauzein (2014), this taxon is instead included in D. caryophyllus subsp. longicaulis (Ten.) Arcang., but the author argues that it could constitute a distinct subspecies (D. caryophyllus subsp. godronianus (Jord.) P.Martin). Dianthus godronianus is instead considered a distinct species by Tison and de Foucault (2014), although these authors note that some coastal populations in Provence differ for a few morphological features. According to the lectotype features and the recent lectotypification of the latter name (Domina et al. 2021 This specimen conforms to the description of the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered as a heterotypic synonym of D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris in Kerguélen (1993). The lectotype of D. orophilus concerning the shape of calyx teeth, is very similar to the lectotype of D. inodorus (L.) Gaertn., which in turn is currently included within the variability of D. sylvestris (Domina et al. 2021 This specimen conforms to the description of the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered a distinct species by Tison and de Foucault (2014). The lectotype of D. saxicola has 10-15 cm long basal leaves and multiflorous scapes; concerning the shape of calyx teeth, it is very similar to the lectotype of D. inodorus (L.) Gaertn., which in turn is currently included within the variability of D. sylvestris (Domina et al. 2021). Further research is needed to clarify the relationships between these two taxa. The lectotype designated here matches the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered as a heterotypic synonym of D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris in Kerguélen (1993). The lectotype of Dianthus juratensis, concerning the shape of calyx teeth, is very similar to the lectotype of D. inodorus (L.) Gaertn., which in turn is currently included within the variability of D. sylvestris (Domina et al. 2021). The neotype designated here matches the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is accepted by both Kerguélen (1993) and Tison and de Foucault (2014). This species is characterized by having 1 cm long basal leaves, very short, 1-5 cm long single-flowered scapes and epicalyx scales lanceolate with a linear mucro. Concerning the shape of calyx teeth, it is very similar to the lectotype of D. inodorus (L.) Gaertn., which in turn is currently included within the variability of D. sylvestris (Domina et al. 2021). Further research is needed to clarify the relationships between these two taxa. Types. (lectotype here designated): The water-coloured iconography published by Jacquin (1781Jacquin ( -1786, the small individual on the right).

Dianthus sylvestris
Note. The iconography designated by  as neotype is actually part of the original material as uncited illustration (Art. 9.12 of the ICN), since Jacquin's Icones and Collectanea work are interrelated. Therefore this neotypification must be corrected in lectotypification. This illustration depicts two individuals: one small with a 2 branched single-flowered stem and one large, unbranched but with multiflowered stems and basal leaves three times longer, exemplifying morphological variation in this species. In the protologue, it is clearly stated that the larger plant was seen only once in Monte Re, near Lake of Predil, NE Italy ("Uno duntaxat, quod miratus sum, loco Montis regii Rablensis, giganteum inveni, caulibus cubitalibus bi-& trifloris"), while smaller plants are common elsewhere in Carniola. Accordingly, we can conclude that the two drawings depict plants originating from two different areas, thus belonging to two different gatherings. Consequently, the type designated by Bacchetta et al. (2010: 143), neotype or lectotype, belongs to more than one gathering and cannot be accepted as a type (Art. 8.1,8.2,9.3 of the ICN). Thus, the name remains to be typified. No other original material for this name exists (de Langen et al. 1984), so that we select here as lectotype only the small specimen of the water-coloured iconography published by Jacquin at table 86 that better fits the description "folia ... pollicari aut circiter longitudine… Caulis subquinquepollicaris... Flos plerumque unicus [Leaves … one inch or about one inch long, stem less than 5 inches ... flower generally single]".
The lectotype here selected agrees with the current application of the name by numerous authors, e.g., Kerguélen (1993), , Tison and de Foucault (2014), Brullo and Guarino (2017), who consider D. sylvestris as an accepted species. The overall size of the plant, and the length of the leaves are not stable characters for taxonomic discrimination. The shape and relative size of calyx and epicalyx scales are better discriminating taxonomic characters and are evident in the lectotype. These features allow to distinguish D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris from D. sylvestris subsp. tergestinus  The lectotype designated here matches the protologue and corresponds to the current application of the name, which is considered as a heterotypic synonym of D. tarentinus Lacaita (Bacchetta et al. 2010;Brullo and Guarino 2017;Bartolucci et al. 2018). This synonymy is here confirmed based on the shape and size of the leaves, of the scales of the epicalyx and of the calyx which are observable on the types of the two taxa.  [1842][1843][1844]) lacks a written diagnosis or description, and, in any case, it is not clear if the plate was published simultaneously with the main text. Stafleu and Cowan (1983) reports that the volume 6 was published between 1842 and 1844, even though the title page shows 1844. However, this name was validly published on plate CCLXVI (= 266) by an illustration with analysis (Arts. 38.7 and 38.8 of the ICN), which is obviously part of the original material.

Dianthus virgineus
This taxon is considered as a subspecies of D. sylvestris by Vangjeli (2015), Brullo and Guarino (2017), Bartolucci et al. (2018), Peruzzi et al. (2019), and Nikolić (2020). It differs from D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris by having a poorly de-veloped mucro of the epicalyx scales and entire petals. Its distribution (Trieste area and along the north-eastern Adriatic coast), separated from the main range of D. sylvestris subsp. sylvestris, is compatible with the rank of subspecies.