identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
103187FB6A7FB719FF06F96FFAAD84A3.text	103187FB6A7FB719FF06F96FFAAD84A3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carex eremitica Paine	<div><p>Carex eremitica Paine</p> <p>Carex eremitica Paine (1875: 126) is currently an accepted species presumably distributed in the southeastern Mediterranean basin (Israel-Palestine and Jordan; Govaerts 2014, Jiménez-Mejías &amp; Luceño 2011a). Its taxonomic circumscription and sectional placement have been obscure, and the actual taxonomic status of this species has not been revised to date. It was described in the Natural History section of the Identification of Mount Pisgah (Paine 1875), based on materials probably collected by Paine himself in Balqa (“Belqa”) plain, today northwestern Jordan.</p> <p>Paine provided a detailed description of the species, remarking its androgynous spikes congested in a broadly capitate inflorescence (“ spicis in capitulum lato-ovatum spice masculum confertis ”), which allows identifying it as a member of the subgenus Vignea (P. Beauv. ex Lestib) Petermann (1849: 602). Among other critical characters, linear leaves, dark (“dusky”) purple glumes with hyaline margins, and utricles “almost smooth”, “rhomboidal”, and “cuspidate beaked” were specified. The species was later recorded by Post (1986) in his Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai, including a vague description that probably just reproduced Paine’s record, as it was reported only from Balqa. Paine considered this plant to be allied to C. praecox Schreber (1771: 63), a species included in section Ammoglochin Dumortier (1827: 146). However, no species from this group is currently known from Jordan. According to checklists (Govaerts 2014, Jiménez-Mejías &amp; Luceño 2011a) and floristic treatments of neighboring regions (Egorova 1999, Kukkonen 1998, Nilsson 1986), there are only two Carex species that could potentially match Paine’s description: C. stenophylla Wahlenberg (1803: 24) (section Boernerae V. Krecz. ex Egorova (1965: 70)) or C. pachystylis J. Gay (1838: 101) (section Physodeae Meinshausen (1901: 280, 312)). This possibility was already considered by Feinbrun-Dothan (1986) in Flora Palaestina, who considered C. stenophylla to be conspecific with C. pachystylis, and listed “? C. eremitica Paine ” under the synonyms list.</p> <p>We have requested or in situ studied materials assignable to C. eremitica Paine (including materials classified as C. stenophylla and C. pachystylis) from all herbaria where Paine’s collections have been reported to be deposited (G, GH, K, MICH, NYS, PH; cf. Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1976 –1988). However, all searches of C. eremitica type material were unsuccessful.</p> <p>Carex pachystylis and C. stenophylla can be difficult to distinguish from each other when ripe fruits are not available, as the main feature that allow discriminating between them are the coriaceous utricles, not easily detachable from the spike in C. stenophylla, while papyraceous and deciduous in C. pachystylis (Egorova 1999, Kukkonen 1998). Despite Paine (1875) did not give any information about this character, he provided a key clue that allows us to figure out the identity of his species: “almost smooth appressed perigynia”, a character that contrasts with the regularly serrulate beak of C. praecox Schreb. (cf. Luceño et al. 2008), to which Paine compared its C. eremitica. It implies that the utricle beak of C. eremitica was not totally smooth but, at least, very sparsely scabrid. We have studied the scarce available materials of both C. stenophylla and C. pachystylis from Israel-Palestine and Jordan from K and E herbaria (Appendix I). In all the studied samples, C. pachystylis displayed completely smooth utricles, whereas C. stenophylla sometimes had utricles somewhat scabrid at apex. Both characters have been previously recorded for each species in other treatments (Kukkonen 1998, Nilsson 1986). Thus, we conclude that Paine’s C. eremitica is probably a heterotypic synonym of C. stenophylla, so it should be removed from checklists as an accepted species name.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/103187FB6A7FB719FF06F96FFAAD84A3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro;Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E.;Martín-Bravo, Santiago	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro, Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E., Martín-Bravo, Santiago (2015): Taxonomic notes on some problematic Carex (Cyperaceae) names from SW Asia. Phytotaxa 219 (2): 183-189, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8
103187FB6A7EB719FF06FB31FBA1875F.text	103187FB6A7EB719FF06FB31FBA1875F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carex mediterranea Post	<div><p>Carex mediterranea C.B. Clarke ex Post</p> <p>The name Carex mediterranea C.B. Clarke ex Post (1896: 837) displays a somewhat similar problematic situation to that of C. eremitica. The species, distributed in Syria and Jordan, is currently considered as accepted in regional and global checklists (Govaerts 2014, Jiménez-Mejías &amp; Luceño 2011a), although it has previously been synonymized to C. hispida Willd. (in Schkurh 1801: 63) (section Thuringiacae G. Don (in Loudon 1830: 376)) by Mouterde (1966). Carex mediterranea was described on the first edition of Post’s Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai (Post 1896). The indicatio locotypica states “between Burmah and Gerash (Gilead); Lattakia”, today in Jordan and Syria, respectively. Mouterde (1966) studied two type collections from Post’s herbarium (“Burma-Jérash, avril 1886 ” and “ Lattaquié, iun 1884”), probably housed at BEI (cf. Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1976 –1988). He identified them as C. hispida, although he did not perform any formal typification. In despite of this synonymization was already taken up by Flora Palaestina (Feinbrun-Dothan, 1986), Danin (2000) again considered C. mediterranea as a distinct species, and stated that a “sedge expert” determination would be needed to verify a previous record (El-Oqlah &amp; Lahham, 1985).</p> <p>We have found a voucher at K herbarium confirmed by C.B. Clarke as C. mediterranea, whose label (“ Burma — Gerash; May 4, 1886 ”) matches part of the indicatio locotypica in the protologue. This specimen, collected by J.E. Dinsmore, unequivocally belongs to C. hispida Willd., which corroborates Mouterde’s (1966) synonymization. We hereby lectotypify the name C. mediterranea C.B. Clarke ex Post on this K material, and reassert that it is a heterotypic synonym of C. hispida Willd.</p> <p>Carex mediterranea C.B. Clarke ex Post in Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai: 837 (1896).</p> <p>Lectotypus (designated here): “ Burma —Gerash, 4 May 1886, J.E. Dinsmore” (K!).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/103187FB6A7EB719FF06FB31FBA1875F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro;Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E.;Martín-Bravo, Santiago	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro, Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E., Martín-Bravo, Santiago (2015): Taxonomic notes on some problematic Carex (Cyperaceae) names from SW Asia. Phytotaxa 219 (2): 183-189, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8
103187FB6A7EB71AFF06F825FDCD81FF.text	103187FB6A7EB71AFF06F825FDCD81FF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carex nigra	<div><p>Carex nigra in SW Asia east of Anatolia</p> <p>Carex nigra belongs to the taxonomically problematic section Phacocystis Dumortier (1827: 146). The taxonomy of C. nigra and its allies has been a complicate issue, mainly due to its wide morphological variability, that has led to the description of many taxa below species level but also at species rank (see Chater (1980) for a detailed commented list). One of the most outstanding examples has been the recognition of the tussock-forming plants as a separate species (C. juncella (Fries) Th. Fries (1857: 207)), by caricologists as prominent as Egorova (1999). It is a growthform that strikingly contrasts with the typical rhizome-creeping plants. However, recent studies have shown that these plants are genetically indistinguishable from C. nigra s.s. and that tussock-forming growth forms may be induced by environmental conditions (Jiménez-Mejías et al., 2012; Košnar et al., 2013).</p> <p>In the Middle East, C. nigra has been confused with C. orbicularis, and two additional taxa (C. transcaucasica Egor. and C. orbicularis subsp. kotschyana var. caucasica Ö. Nilsson) were described to accommodate plants considered to be problematic by regional authors.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/103187FB6A7EB71AFF06F825FDCD81FF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro;Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E.;Martín-Bravo, Santiago	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro, Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E., Martín-Bravo, Santiago (2015): Taxonomic notes on some problematic Carex (Cyperaceae) names from SW Asia. Phytotaxa 219 (2): 183-189, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8
103187FB6A7DB71AFF06FD85FB8484A3.text	103187FB6A7DB71AFF06FD85FB8484A3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carex transcaucasica Egor.	<div><p>1) Carex transcaucasica Egor.</p> <p>Carex transcaucasica was described by Egorova (1989: 11) to accommodate the Caucasian populations of what she considered to be distinct C. nigra -like plants. She stressed as differences between C. transcaucasica and C. nigra the relative length of the lower bract (shorter than the inflorescence vs. longer or about as long as the inflorescence, respectively), the utricle indumentum (without papillae vs. papillose), and the basal sheaths color (generally blackpurple vs. brown, reddish or yellowish-brown). Those populations are relatively geographically isolated from the typical C. nigra populations from the neighboring non-Caucasian Russia and Anatolia (cf. Hultén 1950, Nilsson 1986, Jiménez-Mejías et al. 2013).</p> <p>Samples referable to C. transcaucasica were included in a previous genetic study (Jiménez-Mejías et al., 2013) and found to be embedded within the genetic variation of the typical European forms of C. nigra. Therefore, these Caucasian populations should be better considered as conspecific with C. nigra. Nonetheless, we studied eastern Turkish and Caucasian materials of C. nigra -like plants (Appendix I) and observed that the distinct morphological reproductive characteristics pointed out by Egorova (1999) are rather constant. Differences in the basal sheaths (Egorova 1999) were found to be inconsistent, probably due to the different conservation of the sheaths in wet and drier soils, as observed in other Carex sect. Phacocystis species (pers. obs.). In any case, the morpho-geographic compartmentalization of the Caucasian populations stresses it as a taxonomic unit within C. nigra (cf. Stuessy 1990). Therefore, we propose combining C. transcaucasica as a C. nigra subspecies (see below).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/103187FB6A7DB71AFF06FD85FB8484A3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro;Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E.;Martín-Bravo, Santiago	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro, Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E., Martín-Bravo, Santiago (2015): Taxonomic notes on some problematic Carex (Cyperaceae) names from SW Asia. Phytotaxa 219 (2): 183-189, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8
103187FB6A7DB71BFF06FB31FB8782DF.text	103187FB6A7DB71BFF06FB31FB8782DF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carex orbicularis subsp. kotschyana var. caucasica O. Nilsson 1985	<div><p>2) Carex orbicularis subsp. kotschyana var. caucasica Ö. Nilsson</p> <p>Nilsson’s (1986) account of Carex sect. Phacocystis Dumort. for Flora of Turkey was one of the most important contributions towards an accurate treatment of this taxonomically complex group in the Middle East. However, the faint morphological boundaries between species, as well as the hybridization between them, have highly obscured the different taxonomic units in this area. This, together with the probably limited availability of reference materials to compare at the moment, misled Nilsson to a few wrong conclusions. For example, he conceived C. acuta Linnaeus (1753: 978) and C. kurdica Handel-Mazzetti (1914: 23) as taxa linked to different phytogeographical regions, Euro- Siberian and Irano-Turanian, respectively. However, some of the Turkish populations that he considered to be C. acuta match the morphological variation of C. kurdica (Jiménez-Mejías et al. 2014), which increases the area of this taxon from the Kurdistan westwards to the Mediterranean. Similarly, he overlooked the presence of C. buekii Wimmer (1852: 83) in Turkey, due to its confusion with C. elata subsp. omskiana (Meinsh.) Jalas (in Jalas &amp; Hirvelä 1964: 49) (see Jiménez-Mejías &amp; Luceño 2011b; Jiménez-Mejías &amp; Rodríguez-Palacios 2014).</p> <p>The case of C. orbicularis subsp. kotschyana var. caucasica Nilsson (1985: 156) (from herein C. orbicularis var. caucasica) is somewhat similar to what happened with C. kurdica. Carex orbicularis is a southern Asian species morphologically resembling both C. nigra and C. bigelowii Torr. ex Schweinitz (1824: 166) s.l. Its taxonomical identity has already been supported by molecular studies (Schönswetter et al. 2008; Jiménez-Mejías 2011). Two widely distributed geographical races have been recognized: the eastern subsp. orbicularis (ranging roughly from Afghanistan to the Himalayas), and the western subsp. kotschyana (Boiss. &amp; Hohen.) Kukkonen (1984: 389), from the Caucasus to the Iranian mountain ranges called the Alborz and Zagros mountains (Kukkonen 1998; Egorova 1999; Amini-Rad 2011). Nilsson (1986) described C. orbicularis var. caucasica to accommodate the northeastern Turkish populations (Caucasian-bordering) of what he thought to be deviant forms of C. orbicularis subsp. kotschyana. On the contrary, he considered the populations from the Armenian Highlands of southeastern Turkey to be typical C. orbicularis subsp. kotschyana var. kotschyana (from herein var. kotschyana). Remarkably, despite he reported C. nigra from the Turkish Caucasus, he did not notice the affinities of his C. orbicularis var. caucasica with C. nigra. It is interesting to note that he distinguished C. orbicularis from C. nigra using characters that broadly overlapped with those that he also used to distinguish var. kotschyana from var. caucasica: “utricles broadly elliptic to almost orbicular […] basal sheaths dark reddish brown” in C. orbicularis, vs. “utricles ovate to obovate-elliptic […] basal sheaths pale brown” in C. nigra; “basal sheaths dark reddish-brown to dark brown […] utricles […] rounded at apex […]” in C. orbicularis var. kotschyana, vs. “basal sheaths pale brown to dark-greyish brown […] utricles […] cuneate at apex […]” in var. caucasica. Egorova (1999) already noticed the remarkable differences between the var. caucausica and the var. kotschyana, and considered the former to “take an intermediate position between var. kotschyana and C. transcaucasica ”.</p> <p>Despite the holotype specimen of C. orbicularis var. caucasica (see below) seems to be lost (L. Glancy, E herbarium, pers. comm.), we were able to study three paratype vouchers (Appendix I). Their morphology does match that of C. nigra (amphistomatic leaves; utricles nerved, cuneate at the top and attenuated into a beak), especially the subsp. transcaucasica, rather than C. orbicularis (hypostomatic leaves; utricles nerveless or faintly nerved, abruptly contracted into a short beak) (see Egorova (1999) and Jiménez-Mejías et al. (2014)). In addition, a sample matching var. caucasica morphology was included in a molecular study (Jiménez-Mejías 2011), and found to be placed within C. nigra genetic variability, with no apparent relation with C. orbicularis. It also helps to reject that C. orbicularis var. caucasica has a hybrid origin between C. nigra and C. orbicularis. Thus, we conclude that C. orbicularis var. caucasica should be considered a heterotypic synonym of C. nigra subsp. transcaucasica.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/103187FB6A7DB71BFF06FB31FB8782DF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro;Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E.;Martín-Bravo, Santiago	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro, Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E., Martín-Bravo, Santiago (2015): Taxonomic notes on some problematic Carex (Cyperaceae) names from SW Asia. Phytotaxa 219 (2): 183-189, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8
103187FB6A7CB71BFF06FCA5FA818696.text	103187FB6A7CB71BFF06FCA5FA818696.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carex nigra subsp. transcaucasica	<div><p>3) Carex nigra subsp. transcaucasica in Iran and Iraq</p> <p>Following a phytogeographical criterion, most authors have regarded southwestern Asian populations of C. nigra -like plants outside Turkey as belonging to C. orbicularis.</p> <p>For Iran, Assadi (1988) reported the presence of C. nigra in Azerbaijan province (Arasbaran Protected Area). However, Amini-Rad (2011) rejected this record and considered it to be C. orbicularis. Kukkonen (1998) neither included Assadi’s record nor listed C. nigra in his Flora Iranica treatment. For Iraq, Hopper (1985) only listed two species of the section Phacocystis: C. elata Allioni (1785: 272) and C. orbicularis. The records of C. elata from Iraq probably correspond to C. kurdica (cf. Jiménez-Mejías et al., 2014). For C. orbicularis, Hopper (1985) noted that previous authors reported some records to be C. orbicularis and others C. nigra (as C. dacica Heuffel (1835: 247), a name formerly misapplied to C. nigra (cf. Egorova, 1999)). However, she preferred to be synthetic and considered all them as C. orbicularis. After the molecular confirmation of Iranian specimens from Azerbaijan province as C. nigra (Jiménez-Mejías et al., 2013), we carefully examined C. nigra / C. orbicularis -like materials from the Middle East following Egorova (1999) and Jiménez-Mejías et al. (2014). The populations listed in Appendix I match the variability of C. nigra, in particular subsp. transcaucasica. The following key, modified from both treatments, readily allows the distinction of C. orbicularis and C. nigra. For the distinction between these two taxa and the other species from section Phacocystis co-occurring in this area, the reader must be referred to Jiménez-Mejías et al. (2014).</p> <p>1. Utricles faintly nerved to nerveless, very rarely nerved, orbicular to suborbicular in outline, rounded at the top and abruptly contracted into a short beak, biconvex to inflated-biconvex, arranged from erect-ascendent to patent in the spike; leaves hypostomatic, more rarely amphistomatic............................................................................................................................................ C. orbicularis</p> <p>- Utricles conspicuously nerved, rarely faintly nerved, ovate to elliptic-obovoid in outline, cuneate at the top and gradually attenuated into a short beak, narrowly biconvex to plano-convex, arranged erect-ascendent in the spike; leaves epistomatic or amphistomatic, very rarely hypostomatic............................................................................................................................................. C. nigra</p> <p>To sum up, the study of materials allows us to confirm the presence of C. nigra in Iran, and spread its range further south to Iraq. Conversely, for C. orbicularis, the Iraqi records must be considered doubtful and needed of confirmation.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/103187FB6A7CB71BFF06FCA5FA818696	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro;Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E.;Martín-Bravo, Santiago	Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro, Rodríguez-Palacios, Giovanni E., Martín-Bravo, Santiago (2015): Taxonomic notes on some problematic Carex (Cyperaceae) names from SW Asia. Phytotaxa 219 (2): 183-189, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.219.2.8
