Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 65. (Budapest 1973)

Ujhelyi, J.: Data to the systematics of the sections Bulbosae and Caespitosae of the genus Koeleria, XI.

long, apically acute, lemmae 6.8 mm long, aristulate, pubescent, paleae bicarinate hyaline. Also antherae large, 3-3.2 mm long. In assessing Koeleria eriostachya, species collectiva, I have pointed out that K. DOMIN drew a great number of unrelated taxa below this name. This holds also for Subsp. I. K. eriostachya PANCIC. While PANCIC submitted only a very short diagnosis, one which, however, referred only to his species, K. DOMIN'S lengthy Latin description covers several species, thus obscuring the very differentiating characters. The problem to our very days with the floral works is that they deal with a mixed material, and this is why they rank the taxa in any number of diverse categories, as immediately apparent in the synonymic list. This is also the reason why I presented above a new and detailed diagnosis of the true Koeleria eriostachya PANC. Beside C. F. NYMAN, K. RICHTER, ASCHERSON et GRAEBNER, who had neither visited the field nor seen the specimens, K. MALY published, for instance in his work cited above (1928), var. carniolica (KERN.) DOM., and its f. glabriflora DOM., as well as var. carniolica (KERN.) DOM. f. subpubescens MALY, from the Zlatibor in Serbia, then var. carniolica f. glabriflora DOM. from the Kopaonik area, etc. I have not seen J. PANÖIÖ'S specimen, labelled ,,in saxosis mtis Stol" (1840), published by K. DOMIN under Subsp. I. K. eriostachya PANCIC 2. var. carniolica (KERN.) DOMIN, but it is not only the hirsute panicle and culm which specifically characterize Koeleria eriostachya PANC. The anatomical examination of K. MALY'S specimens, cited above, or that of J. PANÖIÖ'S exempler from Stol, can above aU decide their specific relegation. It may also be that they represent a third species (e. g. Koeleria paparistoi UJH., or Koeleria mitrushii UJH.). The same holds for the two forms, elevated to variety rank in the Bulgarian floral work (ACHTAROV 1951), namely for f. subulescens DOMIN (STOIANOFP et STEFANOFF 1924) and f. subpubescens MALY (MALY 1928). Incidentally, K. MALY regarded this latter form as one of his var. CARNIOLICA (KERN.) DOM., a parallel form of var. typica DOM. f subpubescens DOM , therefore this is not a form of the Bulgarian Koeleria eriostachya PANC. A. HAYEK considered subulescens DOM. a subvariety, carniolica KERN, a form, and subpubenscens DOM. a subvariety, carniolica KERN, a form, and subpubescens MALY a subform (HAYEK 1933). The blades of J. PANÖIÖ'S type specimen given above are in fact glabrous, but the senile leaves of the specimen, coUected also by J. PANCIC in the Kopaonik mountains in 1850, are uniformly and densely hirsute, hence the primordia of the large macro-hairs had fully grown. The reason why hirsute leaves were not found in most herbarial specimens is because they had been coUected incompletely. For my part, I coUected Koeleria eriostachya PANÖ. in Juniperus nana shrubbery and in the crevices of sterile siheeous crags on the top of Mt. Kom (2000 m. a. s. 1.) in NW Bulgaria in June, 1969, in the locality where J. VELENOVSKY found his big specimen in 1887. It is understandable that exemplars originating from a more closed site of thicker humus are more robust than those deriving from fissures in sterile cliffs. The herbarial systematist has no occasion to see locality conditions and thus classifies herbarial specimens arbitrarily. When I was on Mt. Kom, the truly robust specimens (tussock!) had just burst their panicles. I could not ascertain the taxonomic value of DOMIN'S and STOJANOV et STEFANOFF'S var. subulescens, or MALY'S var. subpubescens, or whether they are locality forms. Nor was the problem solved in Sophia, — the features were obscured. It would be a help if I had occasion to grow in my uniform garden specimens taken from their original site of the taxa concerned.