taxonID	type	description	language	source
C44E87FCFFA7FFC3FF3690F4FACEF6DD.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. s. l., s. d., J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU 1719 a!); SERBIA. s. l., s. d., J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU 1719 b!); SERBIA. Derventa, 8 [August] [1] 880, J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU 1719 c!); SERBIA. E loc [us] class [icus], s. d., J. Pančić s. n. (BP 124030!). Note: — One of the additional specimens (BEOU 1719 a) bears many morphological observations by Pančić and the generic name Heliosperma, certainly written before the name H. monachorum was published, and the specific epithet “ monachorum ”, added later, but no place or date of collection. Amongst these observations, “ habitus pudibund. semina pudibund. × Tommasinii ” can be read. In a letter to Visiani (6 July 1860) Pančić referred to this then-unknown taxon with the words “ my Heliosperma related to pudibundum ” (“ il mio Heliosperma affine al pudibundum ”). In a later letter (7 December 1861), after alluding to the fact that it was Visiani who pointed out to him the affinities between that species and H. tommasinii Visiani (1852), he added that, after reading Juratzka (1858), he had reached the conclusion that it was “ H. chromodontum Boiss. ”. The specimen that we select here as type bears the note “ prob [abiliter] Heliosperma chromodontum Boiss. ” and no other final designations. Nevertheless, since BEOU 1719 a was later identified by Pančić as H. monachorum, and we could prove, albeit very indirectly, that Pančić considered BEOU 1716 to be a member of the same species, and that it was available to him between 1861 and 1865, we can safely conclude that it too must be part of the original material. Since it was also certainly collected from the locus classicus, we prefer it over other specimens as the lectotype. The previously unpublished name “ Silene monachorum Vis. ” is cited in the protologue as a synonym. It appears that Visiani and Pančić intended it as an alternative name, in anticipation of a possible reclassification of H. monachorum in the genus Silene. The name was therefore not validly published in Visiani & Pančić (1865) (Art. 36.1 (c) of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Pančić suggested (in litt.) not to use the epithet “ monachorum ” since the plant “ grows far from the small monastry of Rača (in which just one monk is living) and it also grows elsewhere ” (“ cresce distante dal piccolo monastero Rača in cui vive per adesso solo un monaco [...] e cresce anche [...] altrove ”). He suggested the name “ Heliosperma microdon ” instead “ ob paleolas in margine seminis quem in affinibus breviores ”. This taxon is now generally treated in Silene pusilla Waldstein & Kitaibel (1812) ≡ Heliosperma pusillum (Waldst. & Kit.) Reichenbach (1844: 78), either as a synonym (e. g. Euro + Med 2015) or as a subspecies: H. pusillum subsp. monachorum (Vis. & Pančić) Niketić & Stevanović (2007).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFA7FFC6FF36952CFDE6F20F.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. Trnava blizu Raške [Trnava close to Raška], [1] 856, J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU- 9297!). Note: — Both the specimen selected as type and the additional specimen are certainly part of the original material. We preferred the one in Padova (PAD-H 0023204) since it is more complete and clearly recognisable in the illustration accompanying the protologue. This species has long been considered to be extinct (Vukojičić 1999). At the best of our knowledge, no possible causes for its disappearance were ever proposed, and doubts about its true identity were raised, for instance, by Niketić (2014). When Pančić recapitulated the differences between S. achaeta and S. fumarioides (in litt.), he wrote that “ they are no different but for the thicker hairiness (achaeta) and the internal calycine setae, that are shorter or rather absent in achaeta ” (“ io direi che non sono diverse se non per il indumento più copioso (achaeta) e le sete del calice interno più brevi o piuttosto nulle nella achaeta ”). He then suggested to exclude it form the manuscript, which would have given him more time to solve his doubts, and to exchange it with “ Lactucopsis aurea del Schultz ”. Given that he did not mention S. achaeta in Flora of the Principality of Serbia (Pančić 1874), it seems that he was at least never entirely convinced that S. achaeta and S. fumarioides are different, or possibly eventually convinced of the opposite. As we examined the original material to check the differential characters, we found that the type specimen of S. achaeta bears at least one quite developed seta, along with numerous others that are reduced to stubs, but not outright absent (Fig. 2 B). We also discovered that numerous fruits on one original specimen of S. fumarioides (BEOU 9367!) bear no setae at all (Fig. 2 C). It is therefore not possible to distinguish the two taxa only on the grounds of this feature. No clear difference in hairiness could be detected in the original material. Pančić also pointed out (in litt.) that the two species share the same kind of serpentinaceous soil, which is not evident from the protologue. It is noteworthy that he altogether failed to ever mention the clearest character that is usually believed to separate the two (see for instance Tutin 1976), which is not recognisable in the dried specimens: the colour of the corolla, that is given in the protologues as lilac (“ lilacini ”) in S. achaeta, and yellow in S. fumarioides. Although it is true that phytochemical features, like colouration and smell, were usually deemed to be of little or no importance by many 19 th century botanists (see for instance Visiani 1847), this omission is still striking and casts doubts over the validity of this differential character. In the protologue, Visiani also mentions larger leaf laciniae in S. fumarioides compared to in S. achaeta, but in the specimen of S. fumarioides that he had available in Padova (PAD- 0044651) they are unusually large for the taxon, while they are in fact not at all different from those of the type of S. achaeta in many cases. We conclude that, although a more in depth analysis of these specimens is granted (molecular trials are uderway), there are no clearly discernible morphological differences between the original material of S. achaeta and that of S. fumarioides, and so no grounds, at present, to consider them two distinct species. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability, we here establish that, when the two taxa are treated as the synonyms, the name S. fumarioides should take priority over S. achaeta (see Art. 11.5 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFA2FFC7FF3697D6FBCFF0BB.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. In rupestrib [us] calcareis ad Gornjak Serbi [ia] austr [alis], Jul [io] [1] 861 J. Pančić s. n. (PAD- 23199!); SERBIA. In rupestrib [us] calcareis M [ons] Rtanj C [irculi] Aleksinac [ensis], Jun [io] [1] 854 (PAD barcode H 0023198!); SERBIA. E seminib [us] in [illegible] cult [um], s. d., Pančić s. n. (PAD barcode H 0023195!); [SERBIA] s. l., s. d., s. c. s. n. (PAD barcode H 0023196!) Note: — The specimen selected as lectotype bears two labels. The original one, by Pančić, bears the name “ H. marmoreum Panc. in litt. ad Schultz ”. Indeed, Pančić wrote, in a letter to Visiani (4 January 1863), that he had asked an opinion to Schultz Bipontinus on this species before publication. This label also bears the signature of the famous monographer of Hieracium, Casimir Arvet-Touvet (1841 – 1911), who confirmed the identification. The second label is by another expert on this genus, Saverio Belli (1852 – 1919), and it reads “ Questo è il vero Hieracium marmoreum Panc. Vis. etc. ben differente da quello così determinato e pubblicato da Janka e che sta pure in questo foglio teca ” (i. e. “ This is the true H. marmoreum Panc. Vis. etc. quite different from the one thus determinated and published by Janka that is also present in this sheet file ”). This specimen is compatible with the protologue, well conserved, and was considered by two experts as representative of the concept of H. marmoreum; therefore we do not hesitate to designate it as a type. The name is generally accepted (e. g. Euro + Med 2015, Niketić 2014).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFA2FFC6FF3696AEFDBAF5C3.taxon	description	Note: — In all of their correspondence, Visiani and Pančić referred to S. fumarioides as “ Scabiosa fumariaefolia ”, a name that Pančić considered to be inappropriate (in litt.). Instead, he asked Visiani to consider “ Scabiosa prolixa ” and “ Scabiosa leptostoma ”. Pančić himself later published the name S. fumariifolia, evidently by mistake. We typify it here on the same specimen as the former.	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFA2FFC6FF36909AFF06F45B.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. Raška, Jul [io] [1] 864, J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU 2367!). Note: — The specimen selected here as the lectotype perfectly corresponds with the protologue and was clearly used to prepare the illustration in it. It consists of a full specimen and an envelope with detached fruits. The type bears two labels: one, by Visiani, with the provisional name “ Scabiosa myriotoma Vis. ”, and the other, by Pančić, with “ Scabiosa subachaeta nov. spec?. ”, both later corrected by Visiani to S. fumarioides. The first provisional name (“ S. myriotoma ”) is found in Visiani’s manuscript for Visiani & Pančić (1865). The name is currently accepted (Niketić 2014).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFA1FFC5FF3692BEFCD0F1F6.taxon	description	Note: — The specimen selected here as lectoype is, as far as we know, the only one with information on locality and date of collecting that are compatible with the data provided in the protologue. The name is now generally regarded as a synonym of Centaurea triniifolia Heuffler (1858) (Euro + Med 2015, Niketić 2014), and is sometimes incorrectly reported as “ Centaurea myriostoma ” (e. g. in IPNI 2015).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFAEFFCBFF3692BEFF06F1BF.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. s. l., s. d., s. c. s. n. (PAD-H 0022796!); SERBIA. In rupestrib. calcareis ad rivum Derventa Serb. Occid. Aug [usto] [1] 861, J. Pančić s. n. (PAD barcode H 0022799!); SERBIA. In rupestrib [us] ad Derventa S [erbia] occid [entali] Jul [io], J. Pančić s. n. (GOET barcode GOET 001235); SERBIA. Derventa, s. d., J. Pančić s. n. (JE barcode JE 00015656). Note: — The specimen selected here as lectotype consists of a seed envelope and a dried specimen, and is mounted on the same sheet as PAD barcode H 0022796. Data from the label perfectly corresponds to the protologue and the specimen is clearly recognisable in the illustration. This species was already cultivated by Pančić in 1863, which we discovered from a letter to Visiani dating 14 July 1863. The name is still generally accepted (Euro + Med 2015, Niketić 2014).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFAFFFCBFF3697AAFA96F71F.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. In saxosis serpent [inaceis] ad Mokragora S [erbia] merid [ionalis]. Jun [io] [1] 868, J. Pančić s. n. (PAD barcode H 0044647!); SERBIA. In saxosis serpent [inaceis] ad Mokra gora S [erbia] merid [ionalis], Jul [io], J. Pančić s. n. (PAD barcode H 0044648!); SERBIA. M. Zlatibor. Jul [io] [1] 856, J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU 675!); SERBIA. M. Stol. Jul [io] [1] 864 (BEOU 755!). SERBIA. In rupestrib [us] serpentinac [eis] M [ons] Stol Serb [ia] merid [ionalis], Jul [io], J. Pančić s. n. (G barcode G 00405590!); SERBIA. s. l., s. d., J. Pančić s. n. (G barcode G 00405592!). Note: — We located numerous specimens that were certainly available to Pančić, including two with no date that were certainly sent to Boissier in Geneva in 1865, as we learnt from a letter by Pančić to Visiani dated 17 November 1865. Unfortunately, we were not able to locate any specimen that was certainly available to Visiani, the single author of this name, therefore we had no choice but to select the illustration published along with the protologue, that is very clearly recognisable as E. glabriflora. The name is still generally accepted (Euro + Med 2015, Niketić 2014).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFAFFFCBFF36900AFC75F37B.taxon	description	Note: — The name is still in use, a detailed account of the taxonomy and nomenclature of this taxon was published in Niketić & Tomović (2008). The number of the specimen, “ PAD barcode H 0045503 ”, could not be given there, since the new cataloguing system was only developed later (Clementi 2011).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFAFFFCBFF36914EFA4CF55F.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. Иванова Ливада [Ivanova Livada], Jul [io] [1] 863, J. Pančić s. n., (BEOU- 7516!). Note: — The additional specimen in BEOU bears the name “ Verbascum niveum Ten. ”, later corrected to “ pannosum Vis. & P ”. The unpublished name “ Verbascum montanum Pančić ” is cited as a synonym in the protologue, but the type of Verbascum montanum Schrader (1809) is explicitly excluded, so Visiani’s name is legitimate. Since we were unable to find any specimen that was certainly available to Visiani (and the name was published by he alone), we are forced to select the illustration as a lectotype, although we know that no species published jointly by Visiani and Pančić were studied by Visiani alone (see Clementi et al. 2015) and the additional specimen was certainly available to Pančić before the publication of the protologue. This taxon is now generally treated as a subspecies of Verbascum longifolium Tenore (1811: 16), as Verbascum longifolium subsp. pannosum (Visiani & Pančić) Murbeck (1933: 144) (Euro + Med 2015).	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
C44E87FCFFAAFFCFFF3692BDFCCBF47F.taxon	materials_examined	Additional specimens examined: — SERBIA. Mokra gora Serb [ia] merid [ionalis] in rupestrib [us] calcareis, Jul [io], J. Pančić s. n. (BEOU 11931!). Note: — The original label of the only specimen that we found, kept in the Herbarium Pancicianum — BEOU, includes the name of the genus, locality, and habitat, followed by the month of collection and the collector’s signature. The year of collection is not indicated. The epithet “ serbicum ” was clearly added on the label after the rest, and it is therefore likely that this specimen is part of the original material. Nevertheless, we preferred to select the illustration that was published along with the protologue, which illustrates the taxon very clearly, as the specimen is small and not very well preserved. Hayek (1933) treated this species as a synonym of Allium tenuiflorum Tenore (1811: 165), which was known from Italy. This nomenclatural approach caused much confusion. Tatić (1975) followed this approach in the Flora of Serbia, and included A. tenuiflorum in the list of the Serbian Allium species. In two studies of the genus Allium in the Balkan Peninsula, Stearn (1978, 1981) treated A. serbicum as a synonym of the typical subspecies of Allium pallens Linnaeus (1862), and he followed this nomenclature in Flora Europaea (Stearn 1980) as well, which includes also A. tenuiflorum as a subspecies of A. pallens (Stearn 1980). More recently, in several studies of the genus Allium, including Gregory (1996) and Govaerts (2006), A. tenuiflorum was reinstated to the rank of species; for this reason its presence is confirmed in the countries of former Yugoslavia. However, in these works, A. serbicum is still inconsistently included in A. pallens. This disorder is caused by lack of knowledge of A. serbicum. Insufficient data on the distribution and the differential morphological characters of A. serbicum are the result of the inaccessibility of the area where it is known to grow. In a morphological study of the species of Allium in Serbia, Anačkov (2009) showed that specimens harvested in Beli Rzav, on the Mokra Gora, correspond to the description given in Visiani & Pančić (1865), but are clearly different from the description of A. pallens given by Stearn (1978, 1980). A. serbicum is a smaller plant that grows on steep and often rocky calcareous movable surfaces. Compared to A. pallens, the valves are smaller, with one being evidently shorter. The flowers are milky white, without the pronounced lines that characterise A. pallens. Moreover, the inflorescence does not ever bear more than 23 flowers (Anačkov, pers. com.), while in A. pallens the number of flowers can reach up to 70. These recent observations led to the conclusion that A. serbicum should be considered as a separate species from A. pallens.	en	Clementi, Moreno, Anačkov, Goran, Miola, Antonella, Vukojičić, Snežana (2015): Typification and taxonomical notes on the names published by Roberto de Visiani and Josif Pančić in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas II. Phytotaxa 224 (1): 29-44, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.224.1.2
