Page 4 - Phytotaxa196_2015

Taxonomic investigation is necessary to fill relevant gaps in the knowledge of the target taxa. For instance,
based upon data stored in Chrobase.it (Bedini et al. 2010 onwards), chromosome data are lacking for about half
(640) of the Italian endemics (Bedini & al. 2012a–b).

Materials and methods

The reference point for the inventory was the list of the 1,400 taxa of Italian endemics (Peruzzi et al. 2014,
continuously updated). As already explained by Peruzzi et al. (2014), for the purpose of the present study Italian
endemics are defined as the specific and subspecific taxa occurring only in Italy or only in Italy and in Corsica
(France) or only in Italy and in Malta. Moreover, given the disputed taxonomic status of the subspecies within the
genus Hieracium Linnaeus (1753: 799) (Asteraceae; around 220 subspecies putatively endemic to Italy) these
subspecies were deliberately excluded from the analysis. Endemic hybrid taxa and putatively endemic taxa of
doubtful (alien) origin such as those in the genus Amaranthus Linnaeus (1753: 989) and Oenothera Linnaeus
(1753: 346) were also excluded. Similarly, taxa recorded for Italy at variety or form rank, or taxonomically
doubtful and disputed units, were excluded as well.
We searched the scientific literature for the effective place of publication (McNeill et al. 2012, hereafter ICN;
Hodkinson & Lendemer 2014 concerning the clarifications of effective electronic publication) of accepted names,
basionyms and homotypic synonyms. The names found were uploaded into a relational database, which will be
soon open to public online consultation. Accepted names were defined according to Peruzzi et al. (2014, online
list) and in the framework of the new checklist of the Italian vascular flora (F. Conti and collaborators, in
preparation). The bibliographic data have been searched in the available digital sources and in the libraries of the
Italian institutions. The rarest publications, such as those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, pamphlets or
seed indexes of botanical gardens, usually having a local or limited distribution, were searched in the most
important European botanical libraries.
Once found the references, a critical analysis has been carried out by extrapoLating information on the areas or
localities where endemic taxa of Italy have been described. The level of geographical detail of this information was
extremely variable, ranging from wide areas (but also, with wrong locations and missing data), as typically
reported in the eighteenth–century writings, to very precisely described locations as in the most recent papers. Such
kind of information often needed additional interpretation, supported by historical knowledge, being many old
geographical names (toponyms) definitely lost. These data were loaded using a Geographical Information System
(GIS). In the census, the text of the protologue indicating the locus classicus is reported in its original form,
accompanied by a code that refers to the Italian region as follows: Valle d’Aosta, VDA; Piemonte, PIE; Lombardia,
LOM; Trentino-Alto Adige, TAA; Veneto, VEN; Friuli-Venezia Giulia, FVG; Liguria, LIG; Emilia-Romagna,
EMR; Tuscany, TOS; Marche, MAR; Umbria, UMB; Lazio, LAZ; Abruzzo, ABR; Molise, MOL; Puglia, PUG;
Campania, CAM; Basilicata, BAS; Calabria, CAL; Sicily, SIC; Sardinia, SAR; Corsica, COR; Malta, MAL;
putatively outside Italy, Corsica and Malta, EST.
A second step of this work involved literature analysis concerning the possible typification of the names. In
some cases, during the project (2010–2014), types for some names were designated in specific publications and
cited in the correct position after each name. Isotypes and paratypes were not considered in this work,
concentrating our efforts on holotypes, lectotypes, neotypes and epitypes. Holotype designations for pre-1958
names were mostly re-defined to lectotypes, because it is hardly ever possible to prove that the author used only
one element unless this is explicitly stated in the protologue. In doing this, we carefully followed the suggestions
for best practice recently highlighted by McNeill (2014).
The list of names is arranged according to the alphabetic order of currently accepted names (often
corresponding to the basionym itself). The currently accepted names are highlighted in bold italics.

List of names, their publication details and type information
Abies pectinata var. nebrodensis Lojac., Fl. Sicul. 2(2): 401(–402). 1907.
≡ Abies nebrodensis (Lojac.) Mattei, Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 7: 64. 1908. ≡ Abies alba var. nebrodensis
(Lojac.) Svoboda, Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., s. 1, Fl. Sist. Vyssh. Rast.13: 60. 1964. ≡ Abies alba
subsp. nebrodensis (Lojac.) Nitz., Lustgården: 178. 1969.
Ind. Loc.:—“Madonie, Colma dei pini”. SIC
Type:—Not designated.
Compiled by:—G. Domina

4 • Phytotaxa 196 (1) © 2015 Magnolia Press PERUZZI ET AL.