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.

The two members of the series were hitherto designated as Koeleria eriostachya PANÖ., and Koeleria splendens PRESL var. albanica DOM. It is characteristic of the extremeness of the prevailing concept that, e.g. C. FR. NYMAN, in his work Conspectus Florae Europeae indigenarum .. . 1878-82, assigned Koeleria eriostachya PANÖ. together with Koeleria hirsuta (LAM. et DC) GAUD, to the section b) Lophochloa (RCHB.) NYM., surely because of the longer arista characteristic of the Lophochloa. Following the two species, the annuals (the present genus Lophochloa) are treated seperately under **. K. RICHTER follows this view in his book Plantae Europeae Enumeratio Systematica et Synonymica Phanerogamorum in sponte crescentium vel mere inquilinarum, 1890, with the difference of Koeleria hirsuta (DC.) GAUD, relegated as a distinct 11. species under ^Lophochloa, degrading our plant to a variety status e) eriostachya (PANÖ.) RICHT. In his great Central European flora, G. HEGI considered Koeleria eriostachya PANC. a species, but added Koeleria carniolica KERN as its synonym and thus assesses it sensu lato (HEGI 1906). In the second edition, K. SUESSENGUTH records Koeleria eriostachya PANC. (including its synonym Koeleria carniolica KERN.) as subsp. eriostachya (PANÖ.) SCHINZ et KELLER, of Koeleria pyramidata (LAM.) DOMIN (HEGI 1935). HESS LANDOLT & HIRZEL (1967) concur in this view. As I mentioned in the introduction above, the species-concept dealing with non-existent taxa (not evolutionary and therefore showing no connections of relationship) still prevails in floral works of our very days. In his Conspectus, XYMAN referred Koeleria eriostachya PANC., together with Koeleria hirsuta (LAM. et DC) GAUD., into a common group probably because ÇANCIC mentioned in his German remark added to the Latin diagnosis that he collected his plant as Koeleria hirsuta and it was only subsequently that he received a specimen taken by HUGUENIN on the M. Cenis, enabling him to differentiate between the two species. In accordance with the usage of the time, he also described the features distinguishing his plant from the latter one. It was on the basis of this text that PANCIÖ'S taxon was placed beside Koeleria hirsuta (DC) GAUD, in the Conspectus. RICHTER went one step further in his work cited above, by drawing it as a variety under Koeleria hirsuta (DC.) GAUD. It can be safely inferred that neither author saw PANÖIÖ'S original specimen. The more primordial and doubtless tetraploid member of the Series is Koeleria tuzsonii ÚJHELYI; its variety, inhabiting extreme, xerothermous rocky sites, is the wholly pallid var. albanica (DÓM.) ÚJHELYI. I do not know the descendant of the ancient species, the octopoloid grade Koeleria eriostachya PANÖ. from Albania, as it was mentioned only by HAYEK in the Prodromus (HAYEK 1932), with the further localities Croatia, Bosnia—Herzegovina and Macedonia. In naming my series, I have avoided the designation Eriostachyae, partly because DOMIN used it not for an evolutionary series but in a wider sense for the joining of entirely unrelated and foreign species, partly because Koeleria tuzsonii UJH. is the older member of the series. The members of the evolutionary series are characterized by the dense and cespitose growth, the robust culm, densely pubescent under the panicle, the large erect pili among the dense micro-hairs, the convolute or flattened, greyish-green or greenish blades (sericeous owing to the appressed hairs), the usually violet (suffused), compact, at other times slightly lobate and interrupted panicle, the attenuating spikelet, frequently ending in a minute arista, its surface weakly or densely pubescent. In stature they resemble the higher ploid members of the Series Pénzesii