(3082) Proposal to reject the name Hieracium rupicaprae (Asteraceae)

Abstract

(3082) Hieracium rupicaprae Schrank in Schrank & Moll, Naturhist. Briefe Oestreich 2: 268. 1785 [Angiosp.: Comp.], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. This proposal deals with one of the oldest names in the genus Hieracium L. In 1785, when the knowledge of this genus with its thousands of apomicts in Europe was in its early infancy, Franz Paula von Schrank described under no. 333 Hieracium rupicaprae (“Zottiches Habichtskraut”) in a “Verzeichniß der berchtesgadenschen Pflanzen” (List of plants from Berchtesgaden) published in his “Fünf und zwanzigster Brief” (twenty-fifth letter) (Schrank in Schrank & Moll, Naturhist. Briefe Oestreich 2: 268. 1785). The diagnosis reads: “Der Stengel einblüthig, beblättert, sehr haaricht; die Blätter lanzenförmig: die an der Wurzel gestielt: die am Stengel aufsitzend; der Kelch sehr zottig” (The stem single-flowered, leafy, very hairy; the leaves lanceolate: those on the root stalked: those on the stem sessile; the calyx [actually the involucre] very villous). Schrank describes the locality as “Wohnt am Küheraind; im Wazmannthale; an der Stiege unter der Hochwiese” (lives at Kühraind alp; in Watzmann valley; at the stairs below the high-lying meadow). The two localities are situated in the National Park Berchtesgaden (topographic map sheet 8443/2), in the state of Bavaria, Germany. The numbering of the species clearly indicates that Schrank regarded Hieracium rupicaprae as a fully valid species listed after Leontodon hispidus (No. 332) and before Hieracium pilosella (No. 334). The description is followed by an extensive discussion in which Schrank distinguishes his new species from similar species described in the literature known to him. This includes references from pre-Linnaean nomenclature (Bauhin, Prodr.: 64. 1620; Bauhin, Pinax: 129. 1623; Haller, Enum. Meth. Stirp. Helv.: 744. 1742; Haller, Opusc. Bot.: 144. 1749), and references to three species with valid binomial names: Hieracium alpinum L. (Sp. Pl.: 1124. 1753, also discussing the descriptions of the species by Mattuschka [Fl. Siles.: 197. 1777] and Scopoli [Fl. Carniol.: 389. 1760]), H. amplexicaule sensu Gouan (Ill. Observ. Bot.: 58. 1773) and H. villosum L. (l.c.: 1130). Without doubt, H. rupicaprae is a validly published name. The following year, Schrank (Baier. Reise: 12. 1786) reduced his species to “H. alpinum β. Hieracium Rupicaprae”, his non-use of italics suggesting this was not a formal renaming. But three years later, Schrank again considered his Hieracium rupicaprae to be a synonym of an unnamed variety “β” of H. alpinum in his Baiersche Flora (Schrank, Baier. Fl. 2: 316. 1789), whereas Hoppe (in Bot. Taschenb. Anfänger Wiss. Apothekerkunst 1799: 130. 1799) included H. rupicaprae as a synonym of H. piliferum, which he had newly described in the same place, making his new name illegitimate. Steudel (Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 765. 1840) followed Schrank's synonymy, erroneously citing the epithet as “rupicarpa”. The Index Kewensis (Jackson, Index Kew. 1: 1158. 1893) maintained this synonymy and cited the name as “Hieracium rupicarpum Schrank ex Steud.”, in this form still listed in IPNI today. Froelich (in Candolle, Prodr. 7: 228. 1838) came to yet another conclusion and classified the taxon as one of 16 varieties under H. villosum, adding “v.v.s.” (vidi vivam speciem), which states that he had seen living plants. Zahn, the monographer of the genus Hieracium, initially (Zahn in Koch, Syn. Deut. Schweiz. Fl., ed. 3, 2: 1772. 1901) listed H. rupicaprae, following Hoppe (l.c. 1799), as a synonym of “H. glanduliferum Hoppe a) H. piliferum Hoppe”, then (Zahn in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 280 (Heft 75): 132. 1921) as H. glanduliferum grex H. piliferum, although he later (Zahn in Ascherson & Graebner, Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 12(2): 90. 1930) expressed his uncertainty about the identity of H. rupicaprae by citing H. rupicaprae with question marks as a synonym of both H. villosum subsp. villosum and H. morisianum (Zahn, l.c. 1930: 96), the latter name being much younger, dating from 1859, and also as a synonym of H. piliferum (Zahn in Ascherson & Graebner, Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 12(2): 208. 1931). Schwarz (in Mitt. Thüring. Bot. Vereins 1: 119. 1949) pointed out that Hoppe (l.c. 1799) had created a “totgeboren” (stillborn) name by citing H. rupicaprae as a synonym for his new H. piliferum and that anyone accepting Zahn's (l.c. 1921) taxonomy should adopt Schrank's older name over H. glanduliferum Hoppe (in Sturm, Deutschl. Fl., Abth. 1, 10(Heft 39): 15. 1815). Otherwise, the name H. rupicaprae does not appear in the literature. As no original material could be traced despite intensive searches by the author over years, only the descriptive notes in the protologue and the locality data are available for an interpretation of the taxon. I visited the two localities mentioned in the protologue again in connection with my recent work on the genus Hieracium for the Flora of Bavaria (Gottschlich in Meierott & al., Fl. Bayern 3: 2349–2484. 2024). The Kührointalm on the Watzmann is situated only 1420 metres above sea level and the substrate is pure limestone. The same applies to the Watzmannkar. A synonymy with H. alpinum can therefore definitely be ruled out because of the substrate. Hoppe's assumed synonymy with his, therefore illegitimate, H. piliferum must also be ruled out because that species is restricted to higher altitudes. Hieracium rupicaprae can therefore only be applied to a species of H. sect. Villosa, viz, H. villosum, H. pilosum Froel. (l.c.: 229) or H. dentatum Hoppe (l.c. 1815: 16). For priority reasons a synonymy with the older H. villosum would be a convenient solution, but this seems the most unlikely because Schrank would then certainly have referred to the broad and green outer bracts of the capitulum, which are particularly striking in this species, instead he only emphasises the villous calyx. This leaves only Hieracium pilosum or H. dentatum as likely candidates. Both occur in the Watzmannkar near Berchtesgaden. In both species, poorly developed plants are characterised by unbranched stems with a single capitulum. Consequently, letting priority rule would make it necessary to sink either H. dentatum or H. pilosum into the synonymy of H. rupicaprae. Both species have a wide distribution in the Alps, the Carpathians and the Balkans. Accordingly, their names are in current use in many floristic works and are undisputed (Euro+Med, Euro+Med PlantBase. 2006– [http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/, accessed 11 Jan 2025]; Fischer & al., Exkursionsfl. Österreich, Liechtenstein & Südtirol, ed. 3. 2008; Hand & al., Florenliste Deutschl., Vers. 14. 2024 [https://www.florenliste-deutschland.de]; Meierott & al., Fl. Bayern 4. 2024). In addition, numerous new combinations of subspecies names accepted under both species would be necessary (see Euro+Med, l.c.). In order to avoid such nomenclatural disruption, the proposal presented here is to reject outright the name Hieracium rupicaprae. I thank Norbert Kilian (Botanic Garden Berlin) and John Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.), for valuable comments and improving the text and Jochen Müller, Jena, for relevant literature.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.