Viola dukadjinica Becker & Košanin

Viola dukadjinica Becker & Košanin (in Becker 1926: 145)

Type:— ALBANIA. Northern Albania : Maja Rauns, serpentine, 1400 m, 4 June 1913, N. Košanin s.n. (lectotype BEOU 41953!, designated here). Fig. 1 .

Notes: — In the protologue Becker & Košanin (in Becker 1926: 145) did not cite a holotype. However, sheets of one gathering collected by Košanin on the locality Maja Rauns on 4 June 1913 in two herbaria (‘ the Herbarium in Belgrade and the Herbarium of W. Becker in Berlin ’) were cited as ‘Typus’. Therefore, the two specimens are to be considered as syntypes ( ICN Art. 9.5, McNeill et al. 2012). Becker & Košanin also cited in the protologue two additional collections, Markgraf 734a from Mali Shebenikut and Markgraf 601 from Mali Kaptin Martaneshit; both are paratypes ( ICN Art 9.6).

Later on, Erben (1985: 426) designated as neotype a duplicate of one of the specimens collected by Markgraf from BP, believing that all the original material was destroyed. He cited the paratype specimen with the collector number 734 a, therefore, the 'neotype' must be considered as a lectotype ( ICN Art. 9.9) .

Finally, in BEOU, Stevanović and Niketić discovered one of the syntypes mentioned in the protologue, and named it as an isotype ( Stevanović & Niketić 1990: 320). On the label of the herbarium specimen they wrote 'lectotypus' ( Fig. 1), but an error occurred in the paper and the citation as isotype was published. Since Erben’s lectotypification was not in conformity with ICN Art. 9.12 (syntypes have priority over paratypes), his choice could be superseded by discovering one of the syntypes ( ICN Art. 9.19) .

However, we cannot be sure whether the isotype citation published by Stevanović & Niketić (1990: 320) was only a printing error or if they had the intention to designate the other syntype specimen as lectotype, thus we designate here the specimen in BEOU as lectotype.