Zs. P. Komáromy szerk.: Studia Botanica Hungarica 15. 1981 (Budapest, 1981)

Kováts, Dezső: Distribution and diversity of Phleum alpinum L. and Phleum commutatum Gaud. (Poaceae) in the Carpathians

At Mt. "Királykő": at "Királykő" (Com. Fogaras), beyond Zernest, De. 22.07.1902. At Mts. "Fogarasi havasok": beyond Árpás (Com. Fogaras), Csató, 05.08.1889 - at valley "Bulea", beyond Árpás, Tuzs. 22.07.1914 - at valley "Bulea", beyond Kercisora, Zsák, De. 21.07. 1910; Th. 22.07.1914 - beyond Felső Árpás, at Lake "Bulea tó", Ká. 09.07.1935. At Mts. "Szebeni havasok": "Gudsir" (Com. Hunyad), near Hátszeg, Vángel 07.07.1905. At Mt. "Pareng": beyond Petrozsény (Com. Hunyad), Jáv. 19.07.1910. At Mt. "Retyezát": beyond Petrozsény (Com. Huuyad), Csató 07.0*7.1860; De. 19.08.1903; Jáv. 07.1904; 02.08.1907 - at valley "Zenoga", V. 29.07.1938 - beyond "Gurasada", Ká. 28.07. 1938 - at Lake "Valeriaszka", Le. 02.08.1907. At Mts. "Bihar hegység": beyond Felső Vidra (Com. Torda-Aranyos), Simk. 13.07.1882. Taxonomic survey At first I should like to deal with taxonomical problems. Phleum commutatum Gaud, was described by J. GAUDIN in 1808, but it is not considered to be an independent species by most of the authors, but a synonym, subspecies or a variety of Phleum alpinum L. or Ph. pratense L. (LINNAEUS 1853), so in this way they date back to LINNAEUS' first classification and has since been used in the majority of handbooks: ASCHERSON & GRAEBNER 1898-1902, ROUY 1913, JÁVORKA 1925, HEGI 1927, KOMAROV 1934, SZTOJANOV & SZTEFANOV 1948, DOS TÁL 1950, ROGER & BUTCHER 1961, HUBBARD 1968, SAVULESCU 1972, EHRENDORFER 1973, HESSLANDOLF &< HIRZEL 1976, TU TIN et al. 1980. Other authors made no mention of Phleum commutatum Gaud, at al., for example, MERKER 1910, SCHMEIL & FITSCHEN 1998, NORDHAGEN 1940, ROTHMALER 1962. NORDENSKIÖLD (1945), in her detailed and careful studies of four taxa of Phleum, accepted Phleum alpinum L. and Ph. commutatum Gaud, as two independent species (referring to GREGOR & SANSOME, 1930 and GREGOR, 1931, in: NORDENSKIÖLD, I.e.). Aecording to NORDENSKIÖLD (I.e.) these two species differ sharply in their essential character. First they were characterised by distinct chromosome numbers. Phleum alpinum L. (2n = 14) is a diploid species and Ph. com mutatum Gaud (2n = 28) is a tetraploid one; thia fact is confirmed -by most of the cromosome atlases and floras: DARLINGTON & WYLIE 1955, LOVE & LOVE 1961, FEDOROV 1969, LOVE & ' LOVE 1975, TUTIN et al. 1980. NORDENSKIÖLD (I.e.) pointed out the most important .morphological differences between the two taxa too. According to this the awns of Phleum alpinum L. are quite ciliate, while in Ph. commutatum Gaud, they are subglabrous or sometimes slightly scabrous (GAUDIN 1811). The spikes of Phleum alpinum L. are more vigorous and more cylindrical than those of Ph. commutatum Gaud. • According to my observations hitherto the spikes of Phleum alpinum L

. are short, wide cylindrical, ovoid - sometimes almost round - while in Ph. commutatum Gaud, they are longer and narrow cylindrical. It is the analogous case in the spikelets, in Ph. alpinum L. they are stubby than those of Ph. commutatum Gaud, where they are tightly. The awns of Ph. alpinum L. are usually curved here and there, while in Ph. commutatum Gaud, they are straight. The shoot of Ph

. alpinum L

. is characterised by creeping growth written by NORDENSKIÖLD (I.e.), unfortunately this character is not easy to study on herbarium material. According to her among the four species'of Phleum (

Ph. nodosum L., Ph. pratense L., Ph. alpinum L., Ph. com mutatum Gaud.), the Ph. commutatum Gaud, is the species which differs most distinctly from the others and hence also from Ph. alpinum L., and preferably it should not therefore be grouped with this or any other of the species. Nevertheless, according to her opinion the four species of Phleum are morphologically closely related. According to the difference of ploid level between th'e two taxa every part of the diploid Ph. alpinum L. is smaller against to the tetrapoid Ph. commutatum Gaud. The longer spikes, broader and longer leaves of Ph. commutatum Gaud, than those of Ph. alpinum L. are usually extremely obvious and altogether Ph. commutatum Gaud, is a more robust and taller plant than Ph. alpinum L. I have not made careful taxonomical study hitherto, so I am not quite sure whether Phleum commutatum Gaud, is an independent species, but it seems to be that, on the basis of the above mentioned characters, and the distribution and diversity of the (wo taxa in the Carpathians.