Čeština
EnglishFrom Schedonorus and Micropyropsis to Lolium (Poaceae: Loliinae): New combinations and typifications
Banfi, E., Galasso, G., Foggi, B., Kopecký, D., Ardenghi, N.M.G.
TAXON 66: 708-717, 2017
Klíčová slova: epitypification; fescues; grasses; lectotypification; nomenclature; nothospecies; taxonomy
Abstrakt: Traditionally, the distinction between the genera Schedonorus P.Beauv. (= Festuca L. p.p.) and Lolium L. (Poaceae) is based on macro-morphological features concerning the synflorescence and the spikelets. However, the occurrence of intermediate phenotypes applicable to five natural hybrids originally described under Festuca or ×Festulolium Asch. & Graebn., has raised doubts about this distinction. A close relationship between the two genera is indicated by the ability of interspecific hybridization between various Schedonorus and Lolium species, as well as by the promiscuous pairing of homoeologous chromosomes during meiosis in hybrids and frequent homoeologous recombination (Kopecký & al., 2005, 2008). Thus, Darbyshire (1993) treated Schedonorus [1812] as a synonym of Lolium [1753], introducing four new combinations under the latter genus. This nomenclatural choice was subsequently confirmed on phylogenetic grounds by various authors (Gaut & al., 2000; Torrecilla & Catalán, 2002; Torrecilla & al., 2003; Catalán & al., 2004, 2007) who confirmed the taxa comprise a single monophyletic group. This was composed of the genera Lolium, Micropyropsis Romero Zarco & Cabezudo, and Schedonorus within the broad-leaved Festuca s.l. clade, in opposition to Festuca s.str. in the narrow-leaved clade. Later this monophyly was formalized by Soreng & al. (2015), who regarded Micropyropsis and Schedonorus a s s ynonyms of Lolium. In the present contribution, we provide an updated nomenclatural synopsis relocating all of the Schedonorus taxa, along with the monotypic genus Micropyropsis, into Lolium, thereby integrating or updating the previously published combinations (see Darbyshire, 1993; Banfi & al., 2005; Tison & al., 2010; Loos, 2010; Ardenghi & Foggi, 2015). It should be noted that while the delimitation of Lolium employed here has been widely used and accepted, a conservative and inclusive approach to Loliinae was adopted by Columbus & Smith (2010), who, through the proposal of the combination Festuca perennis (L.) Columbus & J.P.Sm. (≡ Lolium perenne L.), delineated a broader circumscription of Festuca s.l. that included Lolium and, implicitly, further genera belonging to the same tribe. Within the nomenclatural treatment, the acronym “n.v.” (= “non vidi”) was placed besides those combinations whose protologue has not been checked by the authors.
DOI: 10.12705/663.11
Fulltext: kontaktujte autory z ÚEB
Autoři z ÚEB: David Kopecky
TAXON 66: 708-717, 2017
Klíčová slova: epitypification; fescues; grasses; lectotypification; nomenclature; nothospecies; taxonomy
Abstrakt: Traditionally, the distinction between the genera Schedonorus P.Beauv. (= Festuca L. p.p.) and Lolium L. (Poaceae) is based on macro-morphological features concerning the synflorescence and the spikelets. However, the occurrence of intermediate phenotypes applicable to five natural hybrids originally described under Festuca or ×Festulolium Asch. & Graebn., has raised doubts about this distinction. A close relationship between the two genera is indicated by the ability of interspecific hybridization between various Schedonorus and Lolium species, as well as by the promiscuous pairing of homoeologous chromosomes during meiosis in hybrids and frequent homoeologous recombination (Kopecký & al., 2005, 2008). Thus, Darbyshire (1993) treated Schedonorus [1812] as a synonym of Lolium [1753], introducing four new combinations under the latter genus. This nomenclatural choice was subsequently confirmed on phylogenetic grounds by various authors (Gaut & al., 2000; Torrecilla & Catalán, 2002; Torrecilla & al., 2003; Catalán & al., 2004, 2007) who confirmed the taxa comprise a single monophyletic group. This was composed of the genera Lolium, Micropyropsis Romero Zarco & Cabezudo, and Schedonorus within the broad-leaved Festuca s.l. clade, in opposition to Festuca s.str. in the narrow-leaved clade. Later this monophyly was formalized by Soreng & al. (2015), who regarded Micropyropsis and Schedonorus a s s ynonyms of Lolium. In the present contribution, we provide an updated nomenclatural synopsis relocating all of the Schedonorus taxa, along with the monotypic genus Micropyropsis, into Lolium, thereby integrating or updating the previously published combinations (see Darbyshire, 1993; Banfi & al., 2005; Tison & al., 2010; Loos, 2010; Ardenghi & Foggi, 2015). It should be noted that while the delimitation of Lolium employed here has been widely used and accepted, a conservative and inclusive approach to Loliinae was adopted by Columbus & Smith (2010), who, through the proposal of the combination Festuca perennis (L.) Columbus & J.P.Sm. (≡ Lolium perenne L.), delineated a broader circumscription of Festuca s.l. that included Lolium and, implicitly, further genera belonging to the same tribe. Within the nomenclatural treatment, the acronym “n.v.” (= “non vidi”) was placed besides those combinations whose protologue has not been checked by the authors.
DOI: 10.12705/663.11
Fulltext: kontaktujte autory z ÚEB
Autoři z ÚEB: David Kopecky