Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biodiversity Data Journal logoLink to Biodiversity Data Journal
. 2023 Aug 11;11:e103921. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e103921

An annotated nomenclatural checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians

Andriy Novikov 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10848708  PMID: 38327305

Abstract

Background

The current paper presents a nomenclatural checklist for vascular plants validated being (sub)endemic to and present in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians. This checklist is a part of the work targeted on an inventory of endemic plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians. It is mainly based on the analysis of primary sources (i.e. original protologues and monographic works), but also uses the data provided in the recent online taxonomic aggregators, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Catalogue of Life (CoL), Plants of the World Online (POWO), Euro+Med PlantBase, World Flora Online (WFO) and others. Over 7,000 specimens deposited in the leading Ukrainian herbaria were also revised and used as a supporting data source during the work on the checklist.

New information

The checklist provides a revised nomenclature, including corrections on publication dates, rediscovered taxonomic protologues, corrected authorships and revised taxonomic status for (sub)endemic (sub)species of vascular plants occurring in the Ukrainian Carpathians. It contains 1,101 names, from which 78 species and subspecies have been accepted as valid and 1023 species and infraspecific taxa are provided as synonyms. It is completed with critical notes on the nomenclature of problematic taxa and brief annotations regarding their distribution in the Ukrainian Carpathians, indicating the endemicity range and sozological status for all analysed (sub)species.

The current checklist is linked with the GBIF taxonomic backbone, provides notes on detected issues and primarily focuses on its update and correction of the nomenclatural issues and taxonomic inconsistencies, but also aims at discussing issues in other popular taxonomic databases.

Sabulinapauciflora is proposed as a new combination to comply with a recent revision of the genus Sabulina.

Keywords: GBIF, IPNI, CoL, taxonomic databases, endemic flora, Ukrainian Carpathians, nomenclature, Sabulinapauciflora , comb. nov.

Introduction

The Ukrainian Carpathians are part of the Eastern Carpathians located on the territory of four western regions (i.e. Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Zakarpattia and Chernivtsi) of Ukraine. These mountains stretch for over 280 km and cover about 24,000 km2 (Kondracki 1989, Tasenkevich 2004, Novikov 2021). The floristic diversity of the Ukrainian Carpathians consists of over 2500 species and subspecies of vascular plants. It comprises nearly 50% of the flora of the whole Carpathian Mountains range and almost 39% of the entire flora of Ukraine (Tasenkevich 2003, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015). This is one of the most important centres of floristic diversity in Ukraine, having several confirmed glacial refugia and hosting many rare, relict and endemic plant species (Malynovskiy et al. 2002, Kricsfalusy and Budnikov 2007, Mitka et al. 2014). Amongst them, many species have minimal distribution. Some authors report 125 or even more endemic plant taxa from the region, including stenoendemics and microtaxa (Stojko and Tasenkevich 1993, Tasenkevich 2003, Chorney 2006, Chorney 2011).

During our initial analysis, 70 endemic and subendemic taxa (species and subspecies) of vascular plants were selected as those taxonomically non-ambiguous and confirmed as present in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Novikoff and Hurdu 2015). Since that, the initial list has been critically revised, based on newly-available published sources and routine elaboration of herbarium material. As a result, nine taxa (i.e. Aconitumfirmumsubsp.fussianum Starmühl., Leontodonkulczynskii Popov, Oxytropiscarpatica R.Uechtr., Trisetummacrotrichum Hack., CarduuskerneriSimk.subsp.kerneri, Dactylorhizamaculata(L.)Soósubsp.schurii (Klinge) Soó, Dianthuscarthusianorumsubsp.tenuifolius (Schur) Hegi, Euphorbiacarpatica Woł. and FestucarupicolaHeuffel.subsp.saxatilis (Schur) Rauschert) were excluded from the initial list because their distribution was not limited to the Carpathian region and/or due to problematic taxonomic interpretation and chorology. Some more taxa (e.g. Astragalusaustralissubsp.krajinae (Domin) Domin, CarduuskerneriSimk.subsp.kerneri, Erysimumwahlenbergii (Asch. & Engl.) Borbás, Festucapsammophilasubsp.dominii (Krajina) P.Šmarda and Leucanthemopsisalpinasubsp.tatrae (Vierh.) Holub,) were considered as potential candidates for the current list, but excluded from further processing due to their unclear taxonomy and/or chorology. Violajooi Janka, which is a south-eastern Carpathian endemic, has also been excluded because it had been erroneously reported for the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Sheliag-Sosonko et al. 1980, Chorney 2011). ScabiosacolumbariaL.subsp.pseudobanatica (Schur) Jáv. & Csapody mentioned in the initial list (Novikoff and Hurdu 2015) was excluded from the current list due to unclear taxonomic status and chorology. Seventeen taxa and their verified synonyms were newly added, so the current list contains 78 accepted species from 51 genera, 29 families, 15 orders and two classes of vascular plants supported with 1023 synonyms (including the orthographical variants).

During the work with herbarium material, the need for a comprehensive taxonomic checklist became apparent because many specimens were deposited under different names and had different taxonomic interpretations depending on the identifier. Unfortunately, available online databases and published sources did not entirely fill the gap in nomenclature and synonymy and sometimes even provide controversial interpretations. To solve this issue, the checklist with complete nomenclatural citations was compiled, based on comprehensive data analysis. I believe that this checklist will be useful for other scientists conducting taxonomic revisions of certain plant groups and it will fulfil the missing data in existing checklists and databases, especially those focused on biodiversity and conservation.

Dedication

The work is dedicated to the bright memory of my teacher and friend, Prof. Dr. hab. Kazimierz Szczepanek from the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

Materials and methods

The accepted taxa’s names are typefaced in bold italicised font. The synonyms are typefaced in italicised font. The identity sign (≡) indicates homotypic synonyms. The equality sign (=) indicates the heterotypic regular synonyms. The N-dash sign (–) indicates the names with the types which do not belong to the present taxon, i.e. partial heterotypic synonyms (synonyms pro parte), names in the interpretation of a certain author (synonyms sensu) or misapplied names. The names applied in the Ukrainian herbaria are marked by an asterisk. Additional information required to clarify or better understand the provided name is indicated in the square brackets [].

In some cases, the same name has been published twice in the same year by the same author(s), but in different works or it was published first as nomen nudum and soon supported with comments and/or protologue. In such cases, extended nomenclature citation is provided with an indication of both such works delimited by the term ‘et’. The term ‘et’ is applied to avoid confusion with an ampersand (&), which delimits different authors of the same taxon. In other words, in the nomenclature citation, ampersand delimits authors, while the term ‘et’ delimits publications. For example, Chrysanthemumrotundifolium has been published by two authors, Franz Waldstein and Pál Kitaibel. Therefore its nomenclature citation is ‘Chrysanthemumrotundifolium Waldst. & Kit., Descr. Icon. Pl. Rar. Hung. 3: 262, t. 236 (1812)’. The name Thlaspidacicumsubsp.dacicum has been published by János Heuffel twice in the same year, but in two different journals – in the Oesterreichische botanische Zeitschrift and in the Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien. Hence, the providded nomenclature citation is ‘Thlaspidacicumsubsp.dacicum Heuff., Oesterr. Bot. Z. 8: 26 (1858) et Verh. K.K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 8 (Abh.): 61 (1858)’. The name Silenetranssilvanica was first published by Philipp Schur in 1858 and later, in 1860, supported with details in the same journal Oesterreichische botanische Zeitschrift as nomen nudum. Hence, the provided nomenclature citation is ‘Silenetranssilvanica Schur, Oesterr. Bot. Z. VIII: 22 (1858) [nom. nudum] et Oesterr. Bot. Z. 10: 181 (1860)’.

Recently, for the flora of Ukraine, the assessments following criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2022) were conducted and published by Onyshchenko et al. (2022); ascertained threat categories are indicated here for all analysed (sub)species. The national threat categories follow the last edition of the Red Book of Ukraine (Didukh 2009).

Data resources

The present checklist has been compiled in 2017–2022, based on the elaboration of such principal monographic works as Flora of USSR (Komarov 1934), Flora of UkrSSR (Bordzilovskiy 1938, Zerov 1950), Flora of the European Part of USSR (Fedorov 1974, Tzvelev 1989), Flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015), Flora of Poland (Szafer and Raciborski 1919, Szafer 1921, Szafer and Pawłowski 1955, Pawłowski 1963, Pawłowski and Jasiewicz 1971, Jasiewicz 1980, Jasiewicz 1985), Flora of Romania (Săvulescu 1952), Flora of Slovakia (Futák 1966, Michalko 1984, Feráková 1993), Synopses of the flora of the Czech Republic (Opiz 1852, Domin 1935); Flora of Hungary (Jávorka 1924), Flora of Bucovina (Herbich 1859), Conspects of the lora of Galicia (Zawadski 1835, Błocki 1883a, Błocki 1883b, Błocki 1883c, Błocki 1883d, Błocki 1883e, Błocki 1883f, Błocki 1883g, Błocki 1883h, Błocki 1883i, Błocki 1884a, Błocki 1884b, Błocki 1884c, Błocki 1884d, Błocki 1884e, Błocki 1884f, Zapałowicz 1906b), Synopses of the Central European flora (Ascherson and Graebner 1896, Soó 1972) and Conspects of the Flora of Transylvania (Baumgarten 1816b, Fuss 1866, Schur 1866, Simonkai 1886). Such checklists as Czerepanov (1995), Tasenkevich (1998), Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk (2015), Mirek et al. (2020) and other specific publications cited directly in the text were also applied. The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL 2022), Biblioteca del Real Jardín Botánico (RJB-CSIC 2023), Repository of the Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (REAL-J 2023), Google Books (Google 2023), Internet Archive (2022), Hungaricana (Országgyűlési Könyvtár 2023), E-Periodica (ETH Library 2023), Biblioteca Digitala BCU Cluj (Lucian Blaga Central University Library 2022), Elektronikus Periodika Archívum (Hungarian Electronic Library 2023), Digitální knihovna AV ČR (Akademie věd České republiky 2023), Wielkopolska Biblioteka Cyfrowa (WBC 2023) and Guide to the plant species descriptions published in seed lists from Botanic Gardens for the period 1800−1900 (Lut and Veldkamp 2023) have been used as a source of old printed materials containing the initial protologues of taxa.

Besides this, such databases as the International Plant Name Index (IPNI 2023), Catalogue of Life (Bánki et al. 2023), Euro+Med PlantBase (Euro+Med 2023), Plants of the World Online (POWO 2023), Worldplants (Hassler 2023), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF 2023), Wikispecies (Wikimedia 2023), World Flora Online (WFO 2023), Florenliste von Deutschland (Gefäßpflanzen) (Hand et al. 2023) and Global Compositae Database (Compositae Working Group 2023) were also intensively used to construct the initial taxonomic backbone of the present checklist and to verify listed names.

The repositories JACQ (JACQ consortium 2023) and Global Plants (JSTOR 2023) were used to reveal existing type material for all analysed taxa, including those listed as synonyms. The TreatmentBank (Plazi 2023) was used to locate digitised taxonomic treatments for all valid taxa.

Finally, over 7,000 vouchers deposited in the leading Ukrainian herbaria (i.e. KW, KWHA, KWU, CHER, UU, LW, LWS and LWKS – see Thiers (2022) for abbreviations) were processed. Additional information gathered from KRA and KRAM Herbaria and Domin’s Card Index deposited at the Institute of Botany of the SAS in Bratislava was also integrated into the checklist. The dataset of processed specimens has been published in GBIF (Novikov and Sup-Novikova 2022a, Novikov and Sup-Novikova 2022b).

Below is the extended list of the analysed endemic species and subspecies of vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians, with some critical remarks and full nomenclature citations. The brief alphabetic list compiled for quick navigation and routine work with herbarium material is provided in Suppl. material 1. The hierarchically organised checklist with collapsed homotypic synonyms for easier nomenclatural work is provided in Suppl. material 2. The links and accession numbers for DNA sequences for all species revealed using the European Nucleotide Archive (EMBL-EBI 2023) facilities and cross-checked with Barcode of Life Data Systems (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007, BOLD 2023) are provided in Suppl. material 3. The draft table version of this checklist (with some working Cyrillic annotations) used to create the current paper is deposited and freely available from Zenodo (Novikov 2023).

Checklists

Endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians

Liliopsida

E557369F-FBE9-52B6-BB1B-76CC173E4046

Asparagales

CEA044DB-BD31-5FC5-BE8A-89DECDDCB9CC

Asparagaceae

C896D0BF-B227-536C-A0F7-15255EC0752D

Scilla kladnii

Schur, Enum. Pl. Transsilv.: 668 (1866)

F3C03105-663D-56E3-AA04-4A0CB731BBFE

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4VJH7

https://www.gbif.org/species/2767548

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:540858-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000740952

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/540858-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scilla_kladnii

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/43877abc-2ef9-4cbf-afaf-d18e92f3cf63

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Scilla-bifolia

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10544719#page/690/

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

It was shown that Scillabifolia L. is represented in the Ukrainian Carpathians by single subspecies – subsp. subtriphylla (Schur) Domin, which is a synonym to S.kladnii (Kricsfalusy and Vajnagi 1994, Kolesnyk 2001, Kolesnyk 2003).

Iridaceae

FAEECC43-0D55-512B-9C04-66E998340190

Crocus banaticus

J.Gay, Bull. Sci. Nat. Géol. (Bull. Férussac), 25: 220, Nr. 178 (1831), non Heuff.

653BE5A0-BD5A-5F50-9852-975230219D4C

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/ZKSS

https://www.gbif.org/species/2747589

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:436477-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000788544

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/436477-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Crocus_banaticus

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d631ff50-1df9-4cff-8d91-1dacd8c44ed2

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Crocus-banaticus

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/25919#page/718

https://hal.jacq.org/HAL0134213

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000499181

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000499180

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000499179

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000499183

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000499182

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mo-202890

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian subendemic.

Notes

In Ukraine, this species occurs in Transcarpathia only and is listed in the Red Book of Ukraine as vulnerable (Mihály and Komendar 1993, Mygal 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021). In his paper, Hooker (1840), in table 3861, indicated that C.speciosusvar.transsylvanicus is a synonym of C.speciosus mentioned by Lindley (1839) in table 40. However, Lindley clearly stated that he considered C.speciosus sensu Baumg. (not sensu M.Bieb.) and also mentioned these plants under the name C.nudiflorus. Both taxa, C.speciosus sensu Baumg. and C.nudiflorus are known synonyms of C . banaticus . Consequently, C.speciosusvar.transsylvanicus is also considered here as a synonym of C.banaticus. Danciu and Golban (2009) on page 131 also mentioned C.speciosus Rochel, non alior as a synonym of C.banaticus. However, in the original work of Rochel (1828), there is no evidence of its synonymy with C . banaticus.

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/2747449, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/436685-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000788843, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/719bcaf0-a50e-4a66-86b9-fc4b2a73352f, accessed on 05.06.2023) mistakenly indicate Crocirisiridiflora Schur and C.speciosa Schur as synonyms for Crocussalzmannii J.Gay occurring in Spain, Morocco and Algeria. Both Schur’s species were described from the Carpathian region (Schur 1853) and have no relation to C.salzmannii, which is sometimes recognised as a subspecies, C.serotinussubsp.salzmannii (J.Gay) B.Mathew). It was shown that C.banaticus, which, for a long time, was considered belonging to the independent subgenus CrocirisSchur, is a morphological variant withinsectionCrocus, but still distinct from C.salzmannii (Surányi et al. 2010, Harpke et al. 2013). This mistaken synonymisation has been resolved in the Worldplants database (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Crocus-salzmannii, accessed on 07.06.2023).

Orchidaceae

5AA0C612-D9BE-507D-ADFA-69D2A44E8AA8

Gymnadenia carpatica

(Zapał.) Teppner et E.Klein, Phyton (Horn) 38 (1): 221 (1998)

82EC76E3-5B88-5281-ACF4-2A8BB1247F5D

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3HP3F

https://www.gbif.org/species/2840452

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:1003516-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000976550

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/1003516-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gymnadenia_carpatica

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d0bda98f-b0f8-4192-a6fa-e8ce84a65cf6

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Nigritella-nigra

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic

Notes

The Red Book of Ukraine lists this species as obsolescent (Chorney 2009c, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

Nigritellarubraf.carpatica (Zapał.) Soó is a homonym of Gymnadeniacarpatica. However, GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/2840596, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/636560-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) and WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000976634, accessed on 07.06.2023) mistakenly provide Nigritellarubraf.carpatica amongst synonyms to G.miniata (Crantz) Hayek. Gymnadeniaminiata (= Gymnadeniarubra Wettst.) as a distinct West-South-Central European red-flowered species of vanilla orchid (Baumann and Lorenz 2011) that does not occur in the Carpathians (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/636560-1, accessed on 07.07.2023).

Poales

805A29BB-76F6-5B7E-A982-2FAFA21316BF

Juncaceae

ADA3AD45-FA37-5502-8342-A752DD9392B9

Luzula alpinopilosa obscura

S.E.Fröhner, Preslia 40: 426 (1968)

E3838538-5E75-5882-B85E-0C3599F6F920

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5JFTM

https://www.gbif.org/species/7870156

https://www.gbif.org/species/8067039

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000777604

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/50966612-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/0a2c93e4-408c-4767-84b9-214de6f3ce86

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Luzula-alpinopilosa

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/443701-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), there are three subspecies of L.alpinopilosa(Chaix)Breistr –subsp.alpinopilosa(distributed in Western and Central Europe),subsp.deflexa(Kožuharov) Kirschner (native to South Europe) andsubsp.obscura (the only subspecies occurring in the Carpathians). Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015), on page 544, considered L.spadicea (All.) DC. a synonym of L.alpinopilosa subsp. obscura and L.alpinopilosa. Similarly, Mirek et al. (2020), on page 112, considered L.spadicea a synonym of L.alpinopilosa without clarification of the subspecies. Considering the absence of other subspecies in the range, all plants from the Carpathian Mts. identified as L.alpinopilosa and L.spadicea should be regarded as belonging to L.alpinopilosasubsp.obscura.

Poaceae

72263A8C-7B93-5798-B15D-F80AEB67A46F

Alopecurus pratensis laguriformis

(Schur) Tzvelev, Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 8: 19 (1971)

3037CFF0-D2C8-5276-9537-055116CBC277

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FJ2M

https://www.gbif.org/species/5672026

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:881439-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000845668

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/881439-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/9c3dfa16-2a37-49e2-b6c0-7e576959f9d3

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Alopecurus-pratensis

https://w.jacq.org/W0025395

https://w.jacq.org/W19160035870

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000913477

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000913476

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Three (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/387176-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) to five (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/1d82b70c-8685-4ea4-a6d2-296864770429, accessed on 05.06.2023) subspecies of A.pratensisL. are recognised viz.subsp.pratensis(cosmopolite),subsp.alpestris(Wahlenb.) Selander (occurs in Northern Eurasia),subsp.laguriformis(occurs in Romania and, probably, in Ukraine),subsp.songaricus(Fisch. & C.A.Mey.) N.V.Vlassova (questionable taxon declared for Asia) andsubsp.pseudonigricans O.Schwarz. (dubious taxon mentioned for Germany and Czech republic). WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000845656, accessed on 05.06.2023) also recognises A.pratensisvar.aquaticus (Dumort.) Mathieu (≡ A.aquaticus Dumort.), which is, however, synonymised by the rest of the databases with the widely distributed A.arundinaceus Poir. Presence of A.pratensissubsp.laguriformis in the Ukrainian Carpathians is doubtful and requires confirmation (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015).

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/5672406, accessed on 05.06.2023) POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/387039-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000845481, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Alopecurus-brachystachyus, accessed on 07.06.2023), mistakenly indicate A.laguriformisvar.elongatus Schur and A.transsilvanicus Schur as synonyms of A.brachystachyus M.Bieb. Schur (1866), on page 727, indeed synonymised A.transsilvanicus with A.laguriformisvar.elongatus distributed in Făgăraș (Schur 1859) and Rodna Mts. (Schur 1866). Schur (1866), on pages 727 and 728, also pointed out that Neilreich (1861) believed that A.transsilvanicus, A.colobachnoides Trin. and A.vlassovii Trin are synonyms of A.brachystachyus distributed in the Carpathians (Făgăraș, Rodna and Kronstadt [= Brașov]). However, Neilreich’s taxonomic interpretation of the mentioned taxa was mistaken because he relied on Janka (1858), who concluded that revised specimens of A.laguriformis are identical to the plants of A.vlassovii from the Altai and Baikal. In fact, this Janka’s conclusion led to the synonymisation of A.laguriformis with A.vlassovii and, consequently, with A.colobachnoides, which are morphologically different and geographically isolated taxa Tzvelev (1976). Such Janka’s misinterpretation of A.laguriformis was first outlined by Simonkai (1886). Later, Tzvelev (1971), in his revision of the genus Alopecurus distinguished A.brachystachyus and A.laguriformis and downgraded the last one to the rank of subspecies A.pratensissubsp.laguriformis Tzvelev (1974), Tzvelev (1976), Tzvelev (1978) and Tzvelev (1978) also pointed out that A.pratensissubsp.laguriformis is known exclusively from the Carpathians, while A.brachystachyus (≡ A.colobachnoides and = A.vlassovii) occurs out of Europe far to the east, in the Caucasus, Siberia, China and Mongolia.

Festuca amethystina orientalis

Krajina, Acta Bot. Bohem. 9: 214 (1930), non alior

7699EBFA-189B-553E-8C93-3B8DC21EACA0

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5HC6W

https://www.gbif.org/species/5940986

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77188270-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000869748

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77188270-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/aa72de8f-989c-48f8-b841-662e5460634b

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Festuca-amethystina

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Two (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/402336-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) to four (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/4427a965-d232-4346-97dd-5275c9dbdb31, accessed on 05.06.2023) subspecies of FestucaamethystinaL. are recognised –subsp.amethystina(distributed almost in the whole of Europe),subsp.orientalis(=subsp.inarmata, endemic to the south-eastern Carpathians; its presence in the Balkans doubted by Kliment et al. (2016)), subsp. kummeri (Beck) Markgr.-Dann. (sporadically represented in South and Central Europe) and subsp. ritschlii (Hack.) Markgr.-Dann. (occurs in Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Romania – see Jakubowska-Gabara (1994), Indreica (2007), Kiedrzyński et al. (2015), Łazarski (2016), Rewicz et al. (2018)). Euro+Med, based on personal communication with B. Valdés in 2004, but without any further confirmation, also declares the presence of F.amethystinasubsp.ritschlii (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d2e8901d-25eb-420d-8c69-3b4b93a622d9, accessed on 05.06.2023), as well as subsp. orientalis (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/aa72de8f-989c-48f8-b841-662e5460634b, accessed on 05.06.2023) in Ukraine. Roleček et al. (2019) also suggest the presence of F.amethystinasubsp.orientalis in the Ukrainian Carpathians instead of F.amethystinasubsp.A.ethystina. However, at the moment, there is no evidence confirming the presence of F.amethystinasubsp.ritschlii or F.amethystinasubsp.orientalis in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Only F.amethystinasubsp.orientalis is mentioned by Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015) and other Ukrainian authors (e.g. Bednarska (2007)). On the other hand, Rewicz et al. (2018) recently stressed the applicability of morphological traits for the delimitation of infraspecific taxa within F.amethystina. They pointed out the need for a taxonomic revision of this species to clarify its biogeography.

Festuca carpatica

F.Dietr., Nachtr. Vollst. Lex. Gärtn. 3: 333 (1817)

B37B4FE8-CCB6-555F-8BA1-A3C7A5BFCD95

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6HRFT

https://www.gbif.org/species/4126785

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:402534-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000870071

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/402534-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Festuca_carpatica

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/a38544a4-ae62-4ae4-8ce0-b9ad24647ffc

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Festuca-carpatica

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/4116614, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/403363-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e9bc861f-d097-45a6-bd73-706befdd5fc1, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Leucopoa-pulchella, accessed on 07.06.2023) mistakenly consider F.pseudonutans Schur and F.scheuchzeriformis Schur as synonyms of F.pulchella Schrad. (≡ Leucopoapulchella (Schrad.) H.Scholz & Foggi). Schur (1866), who described F.scheuchzeriformis and F.pseudonutans, later indicated them to be synonymic with F.carpatica and joined under the name F.scheuchzeriformis. Schur (1866) noted that this species occurs in the outskirts of Kronstadt (= Brașov). Merging of F.scheuchzeriformis with F.pulchella, perhaps, resulted from recombinations made by Krajina (1933) on page 51, who downgraded F.scheuchzeriformis to the rank of subspecies (i.e. F.pulchellasubsp.scheuchzeriformis(Schur) Krajina) and delimited two varieties within this subspecies –var.bucegicaKrajina (Muntii Bucegi, Transsylvania) andvar.plicata (Huter. in Hackel) Krajina (south Austria and Yura, Switzerland). At the same time, Krajina (1933), on page 52, described the second subspecies within F.pulchella – F.pulchella subsp. eu-pulchella Krajina, distributed in Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Germany. Hence, following Krajina (1933), only F.pulchellasubsp.scheuchzeriformisvar.bucegica occurs in the Carpathians. Therefore, only this variety corresponds to F.scheuchzeriformis in the sense of Schur (1866). Consequently, this variety corresponds to F.carpatica, endemic to the Carpathians (Kliment et al. 2016).

Festuca porcii

Hack., Bot. Centralbl. 2(8): 407 (1881)

00CBCE86-D379-57B3-9029-3576C055FB87

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6HSGL

https://www.gbif.org/species/4117145

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:403318-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000871666

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/403318-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Festuca_porcii

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/a01bf487-a40c-48e8-aa7b-b8f6eb79215a

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Festuca-porcii

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3095011#page/427

https://kfta.jacq.org/KFTA0002813

https://dr.jacq.org/DR052737

https://w.jacq.org/W19160014841

https://w.jacq.org/W19160014842

https://w.jacq.org/W19160014843

https://je.jacq.org/JE00007301

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19160014841

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.je00007301

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19160014843

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.kfta0002813

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19160014842

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.cas0027412

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mpu027818

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

A vulnerable species listed by the Red Book of Ukraine (Bednarska and Kagalo 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

Festuca versicolor versicolor

Tausch, Flora 4(2): 559 (1821) et Tausch ex Kraj., Publ. Fac. Sc. Univ. Charles, Prague 106: 25 (1930), non J.Presl ex Kunth

17963831-C8E4-5FCD-A49A-8648119D74E7

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5HCKN

https://www.gbif.org/species/6085148

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:403706-1

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:403707-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000872522

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77173355-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/0b134a8c-3aa4-4e34-bdd2-b82875b30957

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Festuca-versicolor

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42515894#page/414

https://w.jacq.org/W0033070

https://w.jacq.org/W0033071

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0062243

  • = Festucaminor Schur, Enum. Pl. Transsilv.: 795 (1866), non St.-Lag.; GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/8351667; IPNI: https://www.ipni.org/n/403091-1; POWO: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/403091-1; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10544846#page/817

  • = Festucavariaf.acuminata Sagorski & Schneider, Fl. Centralkarp. 2: 554 (1891), non (Gaudin) Bolzon

  • = Festucavaria [unranked] giewontica Zapał., Consp. Fl. Galic. Crit. 1: 71 (1906)

  • = Festucavaria [unranked] flavescens Zapał., Consp. Fl. Galic. Crit. 1: 70 (1906), non Gaudin

  • = Festucavariasubsp.pumila [unranked] spiculis flavescentibus Gaudin ex Hack. in Sagorski & Schneider, Fl. Centralkarp. 2: 554 (1891)

  • = Festucavariavar.scopariaeformis Kotula, Rozmieszczenie roślin naczyniowych w Tatrach: 456 (1890)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.rodnensis Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 37 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.rodnensisf.minor Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 38 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.rodnensisf.typica Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 38 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.transsilvanica Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 38 (1930); JSTOR Global Plants: https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19160032081

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.transsilvanica f. Kotschyi Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 39 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.transsilvanicaf.pallens Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 39 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.transsilvanicaf.typica Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 39 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgaris Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 31 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.chrysantha Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 32 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.curvala Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 32 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.debilis Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 33 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.giewontica (Zapał.) Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 33 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.glaucophylla Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ.: 33 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.mutica Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 33 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.robustior Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 32 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.scopariaeformis (Kotula) Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 32 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.typica Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 32 (1930)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.eu-versicolorvar.genuinasubvar.vulgarisf.zapalowiczii Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 33 (1930); JACQ: https://w.jacq.org/W19160013707; JSTOR Global Plants: https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19160013707

  • = Festucaversicolorvar.minor (Schur) Krajina, Veröff. Geobot. Inst. ETH Stiftung Rübel Zürich 10: 40 (1933)

  • = Festucaversicolorsubsp.pseudosulcata Krajina, Spisy Přír. Fak. Karlovy Univ. 106: 43 (1930), non Drobow; JACQ: https://w.jacq.org/W19160038597; JSTOR Global Plants: https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19160038597

  • = Festucaversicolorvar.versicolorf.chrysantha (Krajina) Beldie, Fl. Rep. Soc. Rom. 12: 491 (1972)

  • = Festucaversicolorvar.versicolorf.debilis (Krajina) Beldie, Fl. Rep. Soc. Rom. 12: 491 (1972)

  • – Festucavariaf.pallidula auct., non Hack.

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Two (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/403706-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) to four (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/0c5f7c03-e2bc-42b0-8fd0-7dc8fcc48491, accessed on 05.06.2023) subspecies are recognised within F.versicolorTausch, includingsubsp.versicolor (occurs in the Carparpathians and rarely in the Sudetes – Kliment (1999)), subsp. dominii Krajina (endemic of the Rodna Mts. – Kliment et al. (2016)), subsp. pallidula (Hack.) Markgr.-Dann. (endemic of the Austrian Alps occurring on the rocks and screes up to 1700 m a.s.l. – Šmarda (2008), Essl et al. (2009)) and subsp. brachystachys (Hack.) Markgr.-Dann. (another endemic of the Austrian Alps occurring in the alpine habitats up to 2200 m a.s.l. – Essl et al. (2009)).

Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/0b134a8c-3aa4-4e34-bdd2-b82875b30957, accessed on 05.06.2023) indicates the presence of F.versicolorsubsp.dominii in Ukraine, based on personal communication with B. Valdés in 2003. However, no confirmed evidence of its presence in Ukraine has appeared since then. In the original description of F.versicolorsubsp.dominii, Krajina (1930) mentioned the existence of this subspecies only in Rodna Mts. Šmarda et al. (2007) revised this subspecies as belonging to the non-endemic F.psammophilasubsp.dominii with distribution in Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland. At the same time, Šmarda et al. (2007) considered specimens of F.dominiivar.margittaii Krajina belonging to F.vaginata Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd., which is distributed in Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. Unfortunately, Šmarda et al. (2007) did not revise specimens from Ukraine. In Ukraine, the only discovered specimen of F.dominiivar.margittaii from the Szomotor Village (Hungary) is deposited at the KW Herbarium. Therefore, the presence of F.versicolorsubsp.dominii in Ukraine remains unclear.

Koeleria transsilvanica

Schur, Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 7: 313 (1857), non Barth.

D13B0763-9A90-5B88-B91D-364467A9824F

https://www.gbif.org/species/4136486

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:406727-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000877370

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/406727-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/5170b18f-e88e-413f-ae0e-8f146fd69611

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Koeleria-macrantha

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/29953152#page/314/mode/1up

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Deyl (1934) and Deyl (1940) indicated this species for Petros Mt. in the Ukrainian part of the Maramures Mts. However, there are neither recent field confirmations (Kricsfalusy and Budnikov 2007, Kobiv et al. 2017) nor herbarium vouchers discovered during my investigations. Therefore, the presence of this species in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians is questionable.

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7262109), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77188152-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/5170b18f-e88e-413f-ae0e-8f146fd69611, accessed on 05.06.2023) and WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000877153, accessed on 05.06.2023) consider K.tenuipes (Schur) Ujhelyi and its homotypic derivates as synonyms for K.macranthasubsp.macrantha. However, Ujhelyi (1965), on pages 191–193, indicated that this species occurs exclusively in Transylvania and South Carpathians (Făgăraș Mts.). Ujhelyi (1965) noted that K.tenuipes differs from K.transsilvanica by generally larger sizes, larger leaves, larger and loose panicles and larger spikelet parts, but similar by lack of stomata in the coastal zone of the juvenile leaves and ciliate auriculae of the sheaths. Moreover, the mentioned databases confuse the authorship of the epithet ‘tenuipes’. Ujhelyi (1965) pointed out that it was Schur who first applied this epithet in 1857, while Domin applied it only in 1903 when he described K.transsilvanicavar.tenuipesf.hirsuta (Ujhelyi re-identified Domin’s plants as K.eriostachya Pancic).

Poa carpatica carpatica

(V.Jirásek) Bernátová, Májovský, Kliment & Topercer, Biologia (Bratislava), Sect. Bot. 61(4): 389-390 (2006)

3E8F9EAA-6613-5320-A6A8-AC56C0C4B51E

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77084794-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000908275

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77084794-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/3cdfaf21-83dd-4c76-96bf-a7333f269f7f

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Leucopoa-carpatica

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

Two subspecies of P.carpatica (V.Jirásek) Chopik are recognised: subsp. carpatica (endemic to the Western and Eastern Carpathians – Bernátová et al. (2006)) and subsp. supramontana Bernátová, Májovský, Kliment & Topercer (narrow endemic to the Veľká Fatra Mts and Krivánska Malá Fatra Mts – Bernátová et al. (2006)).

Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015), on page 567, mention P.janczewskii Zapał. for rocks and screes in subalpine and alpine belts of the Ukrainian Carpathians, with synonyms P.balfourii auct., non Parn. and P.nemoralissubsp.carpatica V.Jirásek. At the same time, POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/204398-2, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000893213, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Poa-palustris, accessed on 07.06.2023), as well as Tzvelev (1974), Tzvelev (1976) and Tzvelev (1995) suggest that P.janczewskii is a synonym not for P.carpatica, but for P.palustris L. Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015), on page 568, also independently recognise P.palustris, but indicate that it is widely distributed in the forests (i.e. lower altitudes), flooded meadows and other wet habitats of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Hence, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015) delimit P.janczewskii and P.palustris by morphology and habitat preferences. In the original protologue of P.janczewskii, Zapałowicz (1906a), on pages 34–35, wrote that it occurs in wet places at the beginning of the River Chorniy Cheremosh near Mt. Koman in Chyvchyny Mts. at 1700 m altitude together with P.nemoralisvar.pocutica Zapał. Simultaneously, Zapałowicz (1906a), on page 33, delimited P.balfouriif.carpatica Zapał. from the alpine and subalpine habitats. Hence, Zapałowicz’s original description of P.janczewskii is close to P.palustris, while his consideration of P.balfourii is consistent with P.carpatica. Nevertheless, in the Ukrainian Carpathians, many specimens from the alpine and subalpine belts are identified as P.janczewskii, suggesting that this species can probably reach much higher altitudes and can be confused with P.carpatica. Therefore, I include P.janczewskii as a misapplied synonym of P.carpaticasubsp.carpatica.

Poa granitica disparillis

(Nyár.) Nyár., Rev. Roumaine Biol., Sér. Bot. 10: 355 (1965)

B700E591-0895-529B-9946-8BB69BA7D759

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5KJCS

https://www.gbif.org/species/5947645

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77189564-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001250652

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77189564-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/4479d756-9abe-4d15-a1a4-5d97bffc921e

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Poa-granitica

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022). Global – DD (Bilz 2011b).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Two (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/417145-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) to three (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/b36321f1-3c80-4639-aa91-71b74301d317, accessed on 05.06.2023) subspecies are recognised within P.graniticaBraun-Blanq. vizsubsp.granitica(distributed in the Polish and Slovakian Carpathians),subsp.disparillis (= P.deylii Chrtek & V.Jirásek; distributed in the Polish, Ukrainian and Romanian Carpathians) and subsp. retezatensis Nyár. (distributed exclusively in the Romanian Carpathians and is sometimes considered a synonym of P.graniticasubsp.disparillis).

POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/417145-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) indicates the presence of both subspecies (i.e. subsp. granitica and subsp. disparillis) in the Ukrainian Carpathians. These two subspecies seem to be phylogenetically close, but considered to be geographically isolated (Chrtek and Jirásek 1964, Filipaş et al. 2009, Băcilă et al. 2010). However, there are no confirmed occurrences of P.graniticasubsp.granitica from the Ukrainian Carpathians yet. Only a few specimens in LWS were identified by Tasenkevich as P.granitica subsp. granitica (without further published mentions), but she also indicated on the specimens' labels that P.graniticasubsp.granitica is a synonym of P.deylii.

Poa pannonica scabra

(Asch.) Soó, Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 5: 483 (1959)

35AF9FF6-717D-5295-A75D-E9A0A3CD185D

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7KNSV

https://www.gbif.org/species/4932360

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77188273-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000893233

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77188273-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c6d5f874-9541-44c9-8061-0101aaae6d93

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Poa-pannonica

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NE (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/417674-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), there are two subspecies of P.pannonicaA.Kern. –subsp.pannonica(distributed in Serbia, Moldova, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and, probably, Ukraine) andsubsp.scabra (distributed in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and, presumably, Ukraine). Both subspecies are mentioned for Ukraine in most online databases. However, reports of P.pannonicasubsp.pannonica are, instead, related to P.podolica (Asch. & Graebn.) Błocki ex Zapał., the taxonomic status of which is unclear since it is considered a synonym of P.versicolorBess.subsp.versicolor by Tzvelev (1976) on page 472 and Ghişa and Beldie (1972) on page 407. Regarding P.pannonicasubsp.scabra, there is no recent evidence of its presence in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015, Kliment et al. 2016).

In online databases, the authorship of the epithet scabra is cited as Ascherson & Graebner (e.g. P.pannonicasubsp.scabra (Asch. & Graebn.) Soó). This is incorrect because it was Ascherson (1867) who, on page 568, validly published the name P.scabra and, only later, it reappeared in the synopsis of Ascherson and Graebner (1896). Moreover, IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/n/77288290-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) gives an incorrect nomenclature citation P.pratensisvar.scabra Asch. & Graebn., Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 2(1): 414 (1900) that should be avoided. Ascherson and Graebner (1896) did not apply such a combination; instead, they used P.sterilissubsp.eu-sterilisvar.scabra.

Poa rehmannii

(Asch. et Graebn.) Woł., Fl. Polon. Exs., 10–11: Nr 1020 (1904)

4A24C5EE-2CB2-5280-9E07-A05526A56706

https://www.gbif.org/species/8323860

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:417893-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000893588

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/417893-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d953d4b2-c291-43ab-a284-e929b36ba37f

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Poa-rehmannii

Conservation status

In Ukraine – VU (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

A rare species with only a few known occurrences in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chorney et al. 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:417893-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4KMN8, accessed on 05.06.2023) and GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/4112622, accessed on 05.06.2023) incorrectly provide the nomenclature citation P.rehmannii (Asch. & Graebn.) K.Richt., Pl. Europ. 1: 83 (1889). Richter (1889) did not apply such a name to the rank of species. Instead of this, he delimited unranked taxon (= variety) within P.caesia Sm. Therefore, the correct citation should be P.caesia [unranked] d) rehmanii K.Richt., Pl. Eur. 1: 83 (1890).

Sesleria bielzii

Schur, Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 1: 109 (1850) et Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 4: 84 (1853)

192C3A4C-8EF9-5087-967B-504A32C32BE8

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4WZRV

https://www.gbif.org/species/4119647

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:421321-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000898769

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/421321-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e8373e56-70c0-40aa-8e9d-6e546996ae0b

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Sesleria-caerulans

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11525300#page/119

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11525300#page/970

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

A problematic taxon with unclear chorology and phylogeny. Ambiguous interpretation of S.bielzii has been pointed out in the Flora of Romania (Gergely and Beldie 1972), where two subspecies of S.coerulansFriv. are represented –subsp.coerulansandsubsp.bielzii (Schur) Gergely & Beldie. For both subspecies, S.bielzii has been indicated as a synonym with the only difference being in its consideration by Shur – S.bielzii Schur, Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 1: 109 (1850) has been indicated as a synonym for S.coerulanssubsp.bielzii, while S.bielzii Schur, Enum. Pl. Transsilv.: 743 (1866) has been indicated as a synonym for S.coerulanssubsp.coerulans Later, Chorney (2011) noted that S.bielzii, being, in fact, a Carpatho-Balcanic species, is erroneously considered endemic and referenced to Deyl (1980). Tzvelev (1976) and Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015) also considered S.bielzii a synonym of the non-endemic S.coerulans. On the other hand, Comănescu and Štefănuţ (2010) showed that these two species have similar distribution ranges; nevertheless, they treated these two species independently. Similarly, Lazarević et al. (2015), Kuzmanović et al. (2015) and Kuzmanović et al. (2017) conducted phylogenetic studies with S.bielzii considered an independent species within the Coerulans group.

Sesleria heufleriana heufleriana

Schur, Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 4: 84 (1853) et Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 6: 203 (1856)

F9BF150E-561B-5A74-B2C9-B511914BDE5C

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5L62R

https://www.gbif.org/species/9445568

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:421353-1

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:421352-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001428678

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/421353-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sesleria_heufleriana

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/33685685-5a35-47ea-851e-4c6506dce56f

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Sesleria-heufleriana

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16414642#page/367

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11525300#page/970

https://w.jacq.org/W0030257

https://w.jacq.org/W0030258

https://w.jacq.org/W19120010887

https://w.jacq.org/W19490014837

https://w.jacq.org/W18970006748

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w0030257

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.ny01842943

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w19490014837

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.w0030258

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.b%2010%200367408

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/421353-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), two subspecies of S.heuflerianaSchur are delimited –subsp.heufleriana(occurs in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine) andsubsp.hungarica (Ujhelyi) Deyl (occurs in Hungary and Slovakia). In the Ukrainian Carpathians, only S.heuflerianasubsp.heufleriana is present. Therefore, all reports of S.heufleriana from the Ukrainian Carpathians should be considered to belong to this subspecies.

In the Worldplants database (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Sesleria-sadleriana, accessed on 07.06.2023), S.transilvanica Schur is erroneously indicated amongst synonyms of S.sadleriana Janka. Janka (1882), on pages 309–310 and Janka (1884), on pages 28–29, pointed out that plants described as S.sadleriana differ from those occurring in Transylvania. Ascherson and Graebner (1898), on page 320, outlined peculiar Janka’s treatment of S.heufleriana and, at the same time, synonymised S.sadleriana Janka and S.heufleriana Janka non Schur under the name S.budensis (Borbás) Asch. & Graebn. Hence, S.sadleriana Janka and S.heufleriana Janka, non Schur are not synonyms of S.transilvanica.

Trisetum fuscum

(Kit. ex Schult.) Schult. in Roem. et Schult., Syst. Veg. 2: 664 (1817)

57BED123-3E9E-5DB4-A854-6962933FC4EA

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/592G5

https://www.gbif.org/species/4112815

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:425205-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000905167

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/425205-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trisetum_fuscum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/2c4b09cd-03d0-47a5-8d13-9874fe36f8c2

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Trisetum-fuscum

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/720353#page/672

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

Steudel (1855), on page 226, mentioned the name T.tenue twice, which may confuse. First, he mentioned it as an independent species in the sense of Roemer & Schultes. Trisetumtenue Roem. & Schult. (= Avenatenuis Moench) is currently recognised as a synonym for Ventenatadubia (Leers) Coss. & Durieu, which, following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/426312-1, accessed on 13.06.2023), has pan-European distribution, reaches the north of Africa and is widely introduced in North America. The second time, Steudel (1855) mentioned T.tenue in the sense of Baumgarten (concerning herbarium material) as a synonym for a newly-described species T.transylvanicum Steud. Barberá et al. (2018) conducted the revision of Trisetumsect.Trisetum and synonymised T.transylvanicum with T.fuscum. Therefore, T.tenue Baumg. ex Steud. should be considered a synonym for T.fuscum.

Magnoliopsida

46FE14B8-5B0D-521E-BBD1-FBADF9DA04DA

Apiales

B5A3EBC1-83E1-57EE-8758-342C1C068AE7

Apiaceae

F6F2BA45-8084-5BA2-B5C2-E477D48D6068

Heracleum carpaticum

Porcius, Magyar Növénytani Lapok 2: 25 (1878) et Fl. Naséud.: 144 (1881)

CE69450F-F757-50CA-8805-58FA8AD9D7D6

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3KXBD

https://www.gbif.org/species/7358227

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77221836-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000745368

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77221836-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Heracleum_carpaticum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/616ef7e8-6c89-4d43-8f5b-b52b0bb164b0

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Heracleum-carpaticum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Heracleum sphondylium transsilvanicum

(Schur) Brummitt, Feddes Repert. 79: 65 (1968)

30BD9716-F16D-5131-A679-64005D915D7F

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5HNL9

https://www.gbif.org/species/4928236

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77251611-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000745371

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77251611-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Heracleum_sphondylium_subsp._transsilvanicum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e3a9655b-ed59-4a19-ab5f-0e8f6165eeb0

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Heracleum-sphondylium

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/843179-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), Heracleumsphondylium L. comprises 15 subspecies in the World's flora. However, only three subspecies (i.e. H.sphondylium subsp. sphondylium, H.sphondyliumsubsp.sibiricum (L.) Simonk. and H.sphondyliumsubsp.transsilvanicum) occurs in Ukraine and, in particular, are present in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians. From these three subspecies, only H.sphondyliumsubsp.transsilvanicum is endemic and the other two subspecies have narrow distribution ranges.

Asterales

384C0FEF-F0B1-5110-99CA-025D1502529B

Asteraceae

6C89E956-B4E8-5780-A25C-A98925C22BCE

Achillea oxyloba schurii

(Sch.Bip.) Heimerl, Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss., Wien. Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 48: 137 (1884)

7078D3F7-DEB3-5607-A849-6EC4C9C9E9CD

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FD98

https://www.gbif.org/species/4215221

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60439416-2

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000112464

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/60439416-2

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Achillea_oxyloba_subsp._schurii

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c3b2ad2f-00dd-4d16-8000-e8509b369fe3

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Achillea-oxyloba

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7107159#page/225

https://je.jacq.org/JE00010937

https://je.jacq.org/JE00010938

https://je.jacq.org/JE00010939

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Sometimes A.oxylobasubsp.schurii is confused with A.tenuifolia Schur, which is a separate species. Despite the LC status given to it by Onyshchenko et al. (2022), Ptarmicatenuifolia (= A.oxylobasubsp.schurii) is considered a rare species by Zyman and Chorney (2009) and was recently approved for inclusion in the new edition of the Red Book of Ukraine (MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FD98, accessed on 08.06.2023), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/3120193, accessed on 08.06.2023), IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/n/177603-1, accessed on 08.06.2023) and other databases designate the authorship of Anthemisschurii to Anton Heimerl and indicate the place of publication – Denkschr. Acad. Wien 48: 137 (1884). However, Heimerl is not the author of this name. In his paper, Heimerl (1884), on page 137, indicates that the correct author of this name is Carl Schultz Bipontius and references Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 6: 300 (1856). Schultz Bipontius (1856) applied even three names on the same page as an alternative – Achilleaschurii, Anthemisschurii and Ptarmicaschurii.

Antennaria carpatica carpatica

(Wahlenb.) Hook. in Bluff et Fingerh., Comp. Fl. German. 2: 348 (1825)

443A2A5B-FDB6-569A-BD7C-17E3B86485F8

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FN57

https://www.gbif.org/species/7222270

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77091531-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000005645

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77091531-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Antennaria_carpatica_subsp._carpatica

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d2ef5c0a-f220-4ebf-9676-b6d11e7feb9a

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Antennaria-carpatica

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/6111900#page/370

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.goet001007

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/12F27F67-D6B0-A929-B3DC-162A02D4248C

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

Antennariacarpaticasubsp.carpatica is listed in the Red Book of Ukraine as a rare taxon (Zyman and Bulakh 2009). However, its threat status has recently been increased to an ‘obsolescent’ level (MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

There are two commonly recognised subspecies of A.carpatica(Wahlenb.)Bluff & Fingerh. –subsp.carpaticaandsubsp.helvetica (Chrtek & Pouzar) Chrtek & Pouzar. Only A.carpaticasubsp.carpatica occurs in Carpathians, while A.carpaticasubsp.helvetica is present in the Alps. Chrtek and Pouzar (1985) also described A.carpaticasubsp.amphilanata Chrtek & Pouzar occurring in the Alps and Pyrenees, but it was later synonymised with A.carpaticasubsp.helvetica (Greuter 2006). It is worth noting that many collectors and authors out of Carpathians, under the name A.carpatica, considered it exactly as A.carpaticasubsp.helvetica.

Moreover, there is a close species, A.lanata Greene (= A.carpaticavar.lanata Hook., = A.carpaticavar.laestadiana Trautv., = A.villifera Boris.) that occurs not only in Eurasia, but also in North America (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/14721-2, accessed on 07.07.2023; Greene (1898)). Another close species, A.lanatula Chrtek & Pouzar, occurs exclusively in the south-west of North America (Chrtek and Pouzar 1985).

Centaurea maramarosiensis

(Jáv.) Czerep., Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR. 20: 395 (1960)

476AA9FC-529A-5B06-9610-A425A6DFD150

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/S6XN

https://www.gbif.org/species/4251406

https://www.gbif.org/species/3089524

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:190962-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000136824

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/190962-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Centaurea_maramarosiensis

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/212de873-0e21-48a1-9fc3-2c6cc9c17f2f

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Centaurea-maramarosiensis

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Centaurea phrygia carpatica

(Porcius) Dostál, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 71(3): 207 (1976)

5C24FE14-D288-571D-BE6F-3CEEB92BF579

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7JJJ4

https://www.gbif.org/species/4249913

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:876940-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000109781

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/876940-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/ac14c1f6-ac44-401e-b7ce-4517235d6760

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Centaurea-phrygia

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/191259-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), Centaureaphrygia L. includes 14 subspecies. From this number, only three subspecies (i.e. subsp. phrygia, subsp. carpatica and subsp. melanocalathia (Borbás ex Czakó) Dostál) occur in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015). Even though the last subspecies has a limited distribution and is considered as a Pancarpathian endemic (Tasenkevich 2003), Carpathian subendemic (Kricsfalusy and Budnikov 2002) or Carpatho-Balcanic taxon (Dostál 1989, Malynovskiy et al. 2002), it has a hybridogenous origin (Koutecký et al. 2012, Kliment et al. 2016) and, therefore, is not considered here. Hence, the only endemic representative in the Ukrainian Carpathians from the C.phrygia complex is C.phrygiasubsp.carpatica.

The Euro+Med PlantBase (Greuter 2006), amongst the homotypic synonyms of C.phrygiasubsp.carpatica, provides C.plumosavar.carpatica Porcius that is supposed to be published on p. 34 of “Enumeratio plantarum phanerogamicarum districtus quondam naszódiensis” (Porcius 1878). Similarly, this combination is also mentioned by Prodan and Nyárády (1964) on page 890 and Czerepanov (1994) on page 276. However, in this publication, there is no such combination published. Instead, Porcius (1878) on page 34, published a new combination C.plumosa β polycephala Porcius and only indicated C.carpatica as its synonym. I was also unable to detect where C.plumosavar.carpatica had been published by Porcius. Most probably, the combination C.plumosavar.carpatica Porcius arose mistakenly due to misinterpretation of this name by other authors and has never been published by Porcius.

Doronicum carpaticum

(Griseb. et Schenk) Nyman, Syll. Fl. Eur. suppl.: 1 (1865)

A6F9503D-B682-5873-861D-EDD1B69C04A1

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/37DTP

https://www.gbif.org/species/3142985

https://www.ipni.org/n/1016070-2

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000094993

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/1016070-2

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Doronicum_carpaticum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/087b010f-cb20-410d-bab5-5a1211f34564

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Doronicum-carpaticum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Leucanthemum rotundifolium

(Waldst. et Kit. in Willd.) DC., Prodr. 6: 46 (1838), non Opiz

59096653-FEF4-5E1D-9BEF-718B4952EFF8

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6PRWY

https://www.gbif.org/species/5400956

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:230081-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000137878

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/230081-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leucanthemum_rotundifolium

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/f0573a53-5b02-442d-a43e-e60605a4ff11

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Leucanthemum-rotundifolium

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Saussurea porcii

Degen, Magyar Bot. Lapok 3: 311 (1904)

39D0BA90-B8EA-544F-84A1-4835FAAB0DAA

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6Y3D4

https://www.gbif.org/species/5404478

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:242550-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000009499

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/242550-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/4f83275a-2213-4d2a-8b89-f016fc1c308d

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Saussurea-porcii

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/50401658#page/333

http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B101113971

  • = Saussureaalata Porcius & Czetz, Transilvania 15–16: 118 (1881), non DC.

  • = Saussureaserrata Janka, Oesterr. Bot. Z. 8: 200 (1858), non DC.; BHL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91263#page/208

  • – Saussureaparviflora auct., non (Poir.) DC.

  • – Saussureaserrata auct. Transsilv., non DC.

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

This species is listed as rare in the last edition and has been recently approved for the new edition of the Red Book of Ukraine (Chorney and Danylyk 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021). IPNI, POWO,and WFO (see links above; accessed on 05.06.2023) incorrectly indicate the page of the protologue – it should be 311 instead of 811.

Scorzoneroides pseudotaraxaci

(Schur) Holub, Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 12: 307 (1977)

2D14CB53-1C3F-5232-B1D2-ECD34376CA91

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4VXKC

https://www.gbif.org/species/3133494

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:243487-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000001257

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/243487-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scorzoneroides_pseudotaraxaci

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/1a39d5e8-1034-4c66-aa01-25c0381eae52

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Scorzoneroides-pseudotaraxaci

https://je.jacq.org/JE00017817

https://je.jacq.org/JE00017818

https://je.jacq.org/JE00017819

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

All databases, except Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/1a39d5e8-1034-4c66-aa01-25c0381eae52, accessed on 15.06.2023), indicate Leontodonclavatus Sagorsky & Schneider. as a synonym for Scorzoneroideshispidula (Delile) Greuter & Talavera. This confusion, perhaps, resulted from the fact that Sagorski and Schneider (1891), on page 254, supported the newly-described species with several controversial synonyms, i.e. Apargiataraxaci, Leontodontaraxaci and Leontodonpyrenaicus, which led to the further nomenclatural collapse of these names. Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77075521-1, accessed on 15.06.2023) and other databases, Apargiataraxaci Willd. and Leontodontaraxaci Loisel. are both synonyms for Scorzoneroideshispidula. In addition, following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77180809-1, accessed on 15.06.2023), Leontodonpyrenaicus Gouan is a synonym for Scorzoneroidespyrenaica(Gouan)Holubsubsp.pyrenaica. Neither Scorzoneroideshispidula nor S.pyrenaica occurs in the Carpathians. At the same time, Sagorski and Schneider (1891) clearly indicated that their species is described from the Carpathians and even included specimens from the Ukrainian part of the Carpathians (i.e. Volovets town). Sagorski and Schneider (1891), later in the text, indicated differences between newly-described L.clavatus from Apargiataraxaci Willd., Leontodontaraxaci Loisel. and Leontodonpyrenaicus Gouan that occurs out of the Carpathians. They also pointed out that they consider Apargiataraxaci, Leontodontaraxaci and Leontodonpyrenaicus as synonyms for L.clavatus exclusively in the meaning of authors from the Carpathian region. In particular, they mentioned Apargiataraxaci Wahlenb., Fl. Carpat. Princ.: 235 (1814), non Willd.; Leontodontaraxaci R.Uechtr., Oesterr. Bot. Z. 14: 386 (1864), non Loisel.; Leontodonpyrenaeus R.Uechtr., Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 7: 370 (1857); and Leontodonpyrenaicus Hoborski, Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 3: 19 (1853), non Gouan. Therefore, L.clavatus is not a synonym, neither for Scorzoneroideshispidula nor for S.pyrenaica; it is a synonym for S.pseudotaraxaci as indicated by Euro+Med.

Senecio hercynicus ucranicus

(Hodálová) Greuter, Willdenowia 33: 247 (2003)

8AAC2E71-A8E4-55A2-880E-6221F407EA8A

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5L5FB

https://www.gbif.org/species/4232604

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:50426498-2

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000112942

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/50426498-2

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/facab36a-04e8-4d3b-bfcc-65805e2cf833

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Senecio-hercynicus

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Senecioucranicus Hodálová has been described from the montane and subalpine belts. In the Ukrainian Carpathians, it is mentioned for Chyvchyny and Chornohora Mts. (Hodálová 1999). Unfortunately, I found no specimen of S.ucranicus (≡ S.hercynicussubsp.ucranicus) in the Ukrainian herbaria.

Campanulaceae

A17E83CD-E8FA-589A-8629-5114CE8553E5

Campanula carpatica

Jacq., Hort. Bot. Vindob. 1: 22, tab. 57 (1770), non C. carpatha Halácsy

ABD46F72-E0E0-53E4-ADA7-DFDF3FFA25BE

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5X8SY

https://www.gbif.org/species/5410826

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:140068-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000826758

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/140068-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campanula_carpatica

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/6a581420-8d46-4fb2-986f-4bb346a00d02

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Campanula-carpatica

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/307434#page/32

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

This species is listed in the last edition (Kagalo and Sytschak 2009a) and has been approved for the new edition (MEPNR of Ukraine 2021) of the Red Book of Ukraine with a status ‘rare’.

Schur (1859b) described C.carpathica var. trans[s]ilvanica and indicated among its synonyms C. trans[s]ilvanica Schur. He also noted "affinis valde C.dasycarpae Kit." [very similar to C.dasycarpae Kit.]. However, later Schur (1866) delimited C.transilvanica (p. 436) as independent species from C.carpathica [unranked] c dasycarpa (p. 440). Amongst the synonyms of C.transilvanica, Schur (1866) indicated C.transsilvanica Schur ex Andrae. Amongst the synonyms of C.carpathica [unranked] c dasycarpa, Schur (1866) provided C.dasycarpae Schur and C.dasycarpa Fuss and pointed out that he considers this species not in the sense of Pál Kitaibel. Besides this, amongst the synonyms of C.carpathica [unranked] c dasycarpa, Schur (1866) also provided C.carpathicavar.transsilvanica, but did not mention C.transsilvanica Schur in a rank of species anymore, as he did in 1859. Therefore, C.transsilvanica in sense of Schur (1859b) is not the same as C.transsilvanica in the sense of Schur ex Andrae (1855) and Schur (1866) and requires extra attention to avoid confusion.

Campanula kladniana

(Schur) Witasek, Abh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1: 39 (1902)

0A530332-0496-5A59-9537-368FDA3A5A30

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5X8SK

https://www.gbif.org/species/5411315

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:140522-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000827551

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/140522-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campanula_kladniana

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/2d7ebdb9-7c6e-4197-848c-924879558528

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Campanula-carnica

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Campanulakladniana is a rare alpine species listed by the Red Book of Ukraine (Zyman et al. 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

Campanula serrata

(Kit. ex Schult.) Hendrych, Taxon 11: 123 (1962)

F3A73951-BB3B-5049-BEB6-0F222163250B

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/QBXQ

https://www.gbif.org/species/5411208

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:141081-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000828909

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/141081-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campanula_serrata

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e349678d-60b7-4d07-a437-99a950e91334

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Campanula-serrata

https://je.jacq.org/JE00007049

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022). GLobal – LC (Bilz 2011a).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

This morphologically variable complex basically includes three hardly distinguishable species – C.serrata, C.napuligera and C.pseudolanceolata. CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/QBXQ, accessed on 07.06.2023), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/5411208, accessed on 07.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/141081-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000828909, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Campanula-serrata, accessed on 07.06.2023) also include C.arcuata, C.hornungiana, C.kitaibeliana, C.microphylla, C.redux and some infraspecific taxa from C.rotundifolia to this complex, making it one of the most saturated by synonyms. POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/140550-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000828550, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Campanula-rotundifolia, accessed on 07.06.2023) consider C.lancifolia Schur, non Witasek as a synonym of C.rotundifolia L. subsp. rotundifolia. However, Błocki in the original label on the specimen LWS 92206, probably mistakenly, indicated C.lancifolia Schur as a synonym of C.pseudolanceolata Pant.

Campanulaserratasubsp.recta (Dulac) Podlech (≡ C.recta Dulac) is a confusing name applied for Pyreneinian plants that do not belong to C.serrata s.str., but rather to C.scheuchzerisubsp.lanceolata (Lapeyr.) J.-M.Tison.

Campanula tatrae tatrae

Borbás, Magyar Bot. Lapok 1: 319 (1902)

C42DC870-8DFC-5C55-B9DE-B85FD329FB85

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7JFNM

https://www.gbif.org/species/7222073

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:141196-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000829119

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77168970-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campanula_tatrae

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c454d5af-c66c-4d0a-b009-a0e8754e9c9c

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Campanula-tatrae

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/50326303#page/345

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

In general, there are three subspecies of C.tatrae (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/141196-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) – subsp. tatrae, subsp. mentiens (Witasek) Kovanda and subsp. sudetica (Hruby) Kovanda. The last two subspecies occur exclusively in the Western Carpathians; therefore, only C.tatraesubsp.tatrae is represented in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians.

However, C.tatraesubsp.tatrae has a long and complex naming history. In the Ukrainian Carpathians, it combines two main taxa that are often distinguished as independent species (i.e. C.polymorpha (Witasek) Prain and C.rotundifolia L., p.p.) by certain authors (e.g. Dremliuga and Zyman (2012), Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015)). However, Kovanda (1975) conducted nomenclatural explorations and stressed the taxonomic concept that Witaseks applied to Schur's C.kladniana in her early publication (Witasek 1902). To avoid misinterpretation of plants from the Tatrae Mts. that were often incorrectly identified as C.kladniana (Schur) Witasek and synonymised with C.polymorha, Kovanda (1975) proposed using the name C.tatrae that has been published earlier by Borbás (1902) and had an unambiguous sense. Many infraspecific taxa from Campanulascheuchzeri auct., non Vill. seem to be a part of C.tatraesubsp.tatrae too (Geslot 1971). On the other hand, in the recent checklists (e.g. POWO, WFO and Euro+Med – https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77168970-1, https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000838737, https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c454d5af-c66c-4d0a-b009-a0e8754e9c9c, all databases being accessed on 05.06.2023), C.scheuchzeriformis Hayek and derived C.balcanicavar.scheuchzeriformis (Hayek) Hruby are wrongly listed amongst synonyms of C.tatrae subsp. tatrae. Campanula scheuchzeriformis occurs in North Albania (Hayek 1921, Hruby 1930). Such synonymisation probably results from confusion because Hayek (1921), in the protologue of C.scheuchzeriformis, mentioned that it is similar to C.scheuchzeri. Another taxon, C.rotundifoliavar.alpicola Hayek (≡ C.rotundifoliaf.alpicola (Hayek) Hruby), is also mistakenly indicated as a synonym of C.tatraesubsp.tatrae in the Worldplants checklist (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Campanula-tatrae, accessed on 07.06.2023) and GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7222073, accessed on 05.06.2023). Finally, Worldplants wrongly indicate the presence of C.carnicasubsp.carnica Mert. & W.D.J.Koch for Ukraine. This species and subspecies do not occur in Ukraine. Such confusion of C.rotundifoliaf.alpicola probably results from the mistaken synonymisation of C.kladniana with C.carnicasubsp.carnica due to ambiguous interpretation of the taxonomic limits of C.kladniana (Podlech 1965, Kovanda 1975).

Phyteuma tetramerium

Schur, Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 4: 47 (1853)

5C4A1E06-2289-5100-800E-B6F60350600D

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4HK3D

https://www.gbif.org/species/3166600

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:144500-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000816731

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/144500-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Phyteuma_tetramerum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/a0297a55-f260-4c09-b97f-adcf68c1f1ee

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Phyteuma-tetramerum

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11525300#page/933

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

This species has several nomenclatural issues. All databases (accessed on 05.06.2023), except for IPNI, as well as most of the publications (e.g. Tzvelev (1995), Tasenkevich (1998), Chorney (2011), Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015), Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk (2015), Kliment et al. (2016) and Kliment et al. (2016)) indicate the name P.tetramerum as introduced by Schur (1853). This orthographical variant is the most abundant and commonly applied by botanists. However, in the original protologue and further (Schur 1866), Schur applied a slightly different name – P.tetramerium. It is unclear why and when the specific epithet lost the letter 'i'. Another issue with this species is that GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/3166601, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000821849, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77287349-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Phyteuma-tetramerum, accessed on 07.06.2023) provide the synonym P.spicatumvar.tetramerum (Schur) Nyman. IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/n/77287349-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) even has a link to the 'protologue' of P.spicatumvar.tetramerum on BHL (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11015628#page/495, accessed on 05.06.2023). However, Nyman never made such a combination and, in the original publication, Nyman (1878) only indicated that P.tetramerium is a synonym for P.spicatum.

Phyteuma vagneri

A.Kern in Vágner, Máram. Növ.: 192 (1875) et A.Kern., Sched. Fl. Exs. Austro-Hung. [Kerner] 3: 107 (1884)

8B1A282B-CBCC-5053-8A5F-8136211B1DA2

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4HK3J

https://www.gbif.org/species/3166602

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:144507-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000816776

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/144507-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/9b4fe0e6-8050-4e83-9efa-3e4a9024bd53

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Phyteuma-vagneri

https://je.jacq.org/JE00020985

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0066442

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0066443

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0066444

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0066445

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0066446

https://w.jacq.org/W18870004173

https://w.jacq.org/W19260020726

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.je00020985

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.dao000457292

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.kw000115548

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Boraginales

51FCEB09-4F58-51D2-9670-D5097F0C25C9

Boraginaceae

70ACAB6F-FF03-5BCA-BCFB-BE4B63B4A7C6

Pulmonaria filarszkyana

Jáv., Bot. Közlem. 15: 52 (1916)

67A8D1AE-DFF5-5881-8223-B4B49F6E7EC9

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4QGPK

https://www.gbif.org/species/9193276

https://www.gbif.org/species/7506258

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:120366-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001215442

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/120366-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pulmonaria_filarszkyana

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/f2a7dc7e-0988-4764-a575-9d361ab223ed

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Pulmonaria-filarszkyana

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.s12-12742

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Symphytum cordatum

Waldst. et Kit. ex Willd., Neue Schriften Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 2: 121 (1799), non M.Bieb.

D3C00C7D-D7B0-51B0-8715-75F2C4BAFB99

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/53QF8

https://www.gbif.org/species/7377391

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:120768-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000432288

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/120768-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Symphytum_cordatum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/cfeda693-ff16-478b-85e7-6ce6913583b1

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Symphytum-cordatum

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.m0188157

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

This species is closely and primarily associated with the Carpathian Mts. (Novikoff and Hurdu 2015); however, it also rarely occurs in the Ukrainian lowland areas in Volhyn (Chopyk 1976) and Podillia (Kobiv 2007, Chorney 2011) going far from the mountain range. As a result, Malynovskiy et al. (2002) considered it Carpathian-Volhynia-Podolian species and Chorney (2011) treated it as a non-endemic taxon with a Central European distribution range. Nevertheless, numerous authors (e.g. Pawłowski (1961), Tasenkevich (2003), Kobiv (2007), Piękoś-Mirkowa and Mirek (2011), Hurdu et al. (2012), Negrean et al. (2015), Novikoff and Hurdu (2015), Mráz et al. (2016) and Kliment et al. (2016)) treated S.cordatum as a Carpathian endemic or subendemic species. Considering the extension of S.cordatum's distribution range to the lowlands, it cannot be considered endemic and, therefore, it is listed here as a subendemic. However, further phylogeographical studies of this species are of great interest and would clarify its disjunctive distribution pattern.

Brassicales

69D64D8E-BD04-5D59-8BD3-CFBB79AFD576

Brassicaceae

4A4F2FA9-333E-59F1-9E1F-2144E06B900F

Arabidopsis neglecta

(Schult.) O'Kane et Al-Shehbaz, Novon 7(3): 326 (1997)

3107228D-D579-5445-982F-74D1AFEEB420

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/G266

https://www.gbif.org/species/3052529

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:997561-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000541803

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/997561-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arabidopsis_neglecta

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/9d2eec80-d9a2-459d-a2fc-ec92315eca7d

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Arabidopsis-neglecta

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/640143#page/326

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

The distribution of A.neglecta in the Ukrainian Carpathians remains unclear due to frequent confusion with A.arenosa (L.) Lawalrée, which is widely spread both in mountains and lowlands (Pachschwöll and Pachschwöll 2019). Schmickl et al. (2012) recognised two cytotypes of A.neglecta–subsp.neglecta(diploid from the alpine habitats) andsubsp.robusta Schmickl et al. [nom. illeg.] (tetraploid occurring in different vegetation belts, including montane and submontane). Contrary to Schmickl et al. (2012), Knotek et al. (2020) reported that tetraploids are more successful in colonising alpine habitats, but, in general, both cytotypes can be present at different elevations. For Ukraine, Kolář et al. (2016) used only three diploid samples of A.arenosa subsp. arenosa sampled in lowermost altitudes near road and railway banks in the Lviv region (Ciscarpathia and Beskyds). Similarly, Knotek et al. (2020) used only two tetraploid alpine samples from the only mesoregion of the Ukrainian Carpathians, Svydovets Mts. Therefore, the ploidy level and diversity of Arenosa group in the Ukrainian Carpathians remain unclear, but it seems that A.neglecta is associated here with subalpine and alpine habitats only (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015).

Cardamine glanduligera

O.Schwarz, Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 46: 188 (1939)

4F33EACB-0CF3-5C17-9C2D-1E9B4880B021

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5WZN4

https://www.gbif.org/species/3045875

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:280334-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000586858

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/280334-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cardamine_glanduligera

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/66346298-7ce1-4e25-b8f9-5488fd71f965

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Cardamine-glanduligera

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Erysimum witmanni transsilvanicum

(Schur) P.W.Ball, Feddes Repert. 69: 151 (1964)

8923633E-FBD0-511C-9619-9DC3AD16AB25

https://www.gbif.org/species/8043371

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001217687

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/3007567-4

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/24dbb669-b2b9-4190-af4b-74f414833444

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Erysimum-witmannii

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Kliment et al. (2016) recognise three subspecies within E.witmanni–subsp.witmanni(Pancarpathian endemic),subsp.pallidiflorum(Szepligeti ex Jav.) Soó (Western Carpathian endemic) andsubsp.transsilvanicum (south-eastern Carpathian endemic). In the Ukrainian Carpathians, only E.witmannisubsp.transsilvanicum is very narrowly present in the Chorniy Dil mountain range (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015). During my explorations, I have found in KW herbarium a few specimens collected by Ilyinska from lowlands (Brody and Zolochiv Districts of Lviv region and Tlumach District of Ivano-Frankivsk region) that were mistakenly identified as E.witmanni.

Noccaea dacica dacica

(Heuff.) F.K.Mey, Feddes Repert. 84(5-6): 464 (1973)

60B3F160-A787-5CAE-9501-8EFDCE991D15

https://www.gbif.org/species/7225610

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:287746-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001217939

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77224759-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/279426f5-029b-419c-9000-f56c8dad0bff

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Noccaea-dacica

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Following POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/287746-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), there are two subspecies of N.dacica–subsp.dacica(occurs in Romania and Ukraine) andsubsp.montenegrina F.K.Mey. (the distribution is limited to Montenegro – Meyer (1973)). The close species, N.banatica (R.Uechtr.) F.K.Mey. (≡ Thlaspidacicumsubsp.banaticum (R.Uechtr.) Nyár.), is sometimes included in N.dacicasubsp.dacica (e.g. in the Worldplants database – https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Noccaea-dacica, accessed on 07.06.2023). However, Al-Shehbaz (2014) distinguished N.banatica as an independent species, while Kliment et al. (2016) outlined it as a South Carpathian endemic taxon. Therefore, only N.dacicasubsp.dacica occurs in the Ukrainian Carpathians.

Caryophyllales

866BEF3A-6780-5819-80E1-54467CB782D5

Caryophyllaceae

92AC6E36-C9BB-5271-94F7-DF249E7153A9

Dianthus spiculifolius

Schur, Enum. Pl. Transsilv.: 98 (1866), non Borbás

61E85F2F-8106-53E0-BB25-19161DC58620

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/35B4J

https://www.gbif.org/species/3808113

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:153899-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000644280

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/153899-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dianthus_spiculifolius

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/1b8d3f50-2765-46fd-a107-6f489b247cad

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Dianthus-spiculifolius

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10544149#page/120

Conservation status

In Ukraine – DD (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

This species is probably absent in the recent flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians since no new finding confirms its presence. It was mentioned for Chyvchyny Mts. (south Bukovina), based on old herbarium specimens by Fedoronchuk and Chorney (2005). However, it is not listed for the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians by Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015). While working in the Ukrainian herbaria, I could not locate any specimen of D.spiculifolius Probably such specimens could be refined in the Schur’s collection hosted at LW, but, unfortunately, this collection has remained permanently unavailable for the last few years.

Borbás (1889), on page 44, indicated that D.carpathicus Borbás (D.callizonus × D.tenuifolius) is a synonym of D.brachyanthus Schur, non Boiss. and indicated it in the protologue “in rupibus calcareis alp. Kyrálikő (i.e. Piatra Craiului Mts. in Hungarian), circa 2000 mt. s.m. Aug. 1858 (Schur !)”. Schur (1866), on page 96, as the protologue to D.brachyanthus wrote “Auf Kalkfelsen des Königstein (i.e. Piatra Craiului Mts. in German) bei Kronstadt (i.e. Brașov). 6000–7000'. Aug.” Williams (1890), on page 37 and Williams (1893), on page 415, synonymised D.brachyanthus with D.microchelus Williams, and also cited it for Kronstadt in Transylvania.

It is unclear why CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6CQ3R, accessed on 07.06.2023), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7267406, accessed on 07.06.2023), WFO (http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000643860, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:153598-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Dianthus-microlepis, accessed on 05.06.2023), as well as Fassou et al. (2022), provide D.brachyanthus Schur amongst synonyms for D.microlepis Boiss., because Boissier (1843), on page 22, described D.microlepis out of the Carpathian region, i.e. from Rumelia, Balkans. The current known distribution of D.microlepis is limited to Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia and Kosovo (Marhold 2022). Perhaps, the synonymisation of the Carpathian D.brachyanthus Schur with Balcanian D.microlepis is a result of a confusion of D.brachyanthus in the sense of Schur (1866) [= D.microchelus Williams] with D.brachyanthus in the sense of earlier Boissier's publication (Boissier 1837: p. 85). Therefore, D.brachyanthus Schur, non Boiss. should be considered a synonym of D.microchelus Williams and D.carpathicus Borbás, non Woł. and, consequently, a synonym of D.spiculifolius Schur.

Interestingly, in all mentioned databases, including IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/n/153597-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), D.microchelus is misspelled as D. microche[i]lus and the incorrect place of publication of this name is indicated. It is wrongly stated that Williams published this species in 1891 in Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. Instead, Williams published it a year before, in 1890, in his monography “The pinks of Central Europe” (Williams 1890: p. 37), while later, in Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift, the editor of this journal, Richard R. von Wettstein, published a brief review on Williams' book with the indication of newly-proposed taxa (Wettstein 1891: p. 176). Thus, Williams never personally published this name in Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift.

Sabulina oxypetala

(Woł.) Mosyakin & Fedor., Phytotaxa 231(1): 96 (2015)

714DC2FA-1306-5E6A-8164-9C775EC996DE

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/78YD9

https://www.gbif.org/species/8565536

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77150589-1

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77150589-1

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Sabulina-oxypetala

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

A rare stenoendemic, which occurs in the Ukrainian Carpathians only in the Chyvchyny Mts. (Fedoronchuk and Chorney 2009, Chorney 2011).

Sabulina pauciflora

(Kit.) A.Novikov, comb. nov.

C6CBA696-EFEF-5840-8AF5-387DB1CB906F

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Minuartia-pauciflora

Conservation status

In Ukraine – VU (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

A rare species mentioned (as M.pauciflora) only for three regions of the Ukrainian Carpathians – Chornohora, Maramures and Svydovets (Chorney and Fedoronchuk 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

In general, Sabulinaverna (L.) Rchb. (= Minuartiaverna (L.) Hiern) has a wide distribution and branched infraspecific subdivision with variable acceptance by different authors. In particular, M.verna auct. fl. carpat., together with M.zarecznyi (Zapał.) Klokov, is considered a synonym of M.pauciflora (Mirek et al. 2020). Moreover, M.pauciflora is often wrongly reported from the Carpathians as M.gerardii (Willd.) Hayek, which is a species from the Alps (Chorney 2011, Kliment et al. 2016, Nunvářová Kabátová et al. 2019). Inconsistency in the taxonomic interpretation and unclear chorology of M.gerardii led to its consideration, including Carpathian plants, as a synonym of M.verna s. str. (i.e. M.vernasubsp.verna or Sabulinavernasubsp.verna) (Fedoronchuk and Mosyakin 2016). However, recent investigations showed that M.pauciflora is clearly distinguished from M.verna s. str. Nunvářová Kabátová et al. (2019) also confirmed the belonging of Carpathian plants identified as M.gerardii to M.pauciflora.

CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/43KDB, accessed on 07.06.2023), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/3811893, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/60435605-2, accessed on 07.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Minuartia-pauciflora, accessed on 07.06.2023) still provide M.pauciflora as an independent species from the genus Minuartia, while M.verna was reconsidered as belonging to the genus Sabulina Rchb. as S.verna (Fedoronchuk and Mosyakin 2016). To keep the nomenclatural consistency within S.verna group, the new combination Sabulinapauciflora (Kit.) A. Novikov, comb. nov. is proposed here.

Only two taxa from the Sabulinaverna group are present in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015) viz. S.pauciflora, comb. nov. (≡ M.pauciflora) and S.oxypetala (Woł.) Mosyakin & Fedor. (≡ M.oxypetala (Woł.) Kulczyński). Both species were previously interpreted as belonging to Alsine L. and were recently reconsidered within the genus Sabulina Rchb. (Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk 2015, Fedoronchuk and Mosyakin 2016, Nunvářová Kabátová et al. 2019).

Silene nutans dubia

(Herbich) Zapał., Bull. Int. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Cl. Sci. Math., Sér. B, Sci. Nat. 11: 151 (1911)

AA696DDD-2803-52C0-88F7-6708FCAF7061

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7J3SQ

https://www.gbif.org/species/7719003

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77250338-1

https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000734610

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77250338-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Silene_dubia

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/0d4533cf-8151-49a6-9c83-2a8a5b067164

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Silene-nutans

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Following Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d201548b-883c-4f46-8151-aed4fac379ee, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Silene-nutans, accessed on 07.06.2023), S.nutansL. includes three subspecies –subsp.nutans(most widely distributed, with Eurasian range),subsp.insubrica (Gaudin) Soldano (distributed mainly in the Alps, but also occurs in Greece, Hungary, Romania and some other countries) and subsp. dubia (occurs exclusively in the south-eastern Carpathians). Additionally, S.nutanssubsp.smithiana (Moss) Jeanm. & Bocquet distributed in France, Belgium, Great Britain and the Netherlands was described by Jeanmonod and Bocquet (1983). Silenenutanssubsp.smithiana in mentioned databases is synonymised with S.nutans susbp. nutans. However, recent studies showed that this subspecies is a separate taxon represented by two haplotypes (Martin et al. 2016). Besides this, POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/157927-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) and WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000440799, accessed on 05.06.2023) recognise S.nutanssubsp.livida (Willd.) Gremli. However, S.nutanssubsp.livida is a direct synonym of S.nutanssubsp.insubrica (Jeanmonod and Bocquet 1983, Soldano 1991, Soldano 2001).

Two of the four mentioned subspecies occur in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015) – S.nutans susbp. nutans (occupies light forested and adjacent habitats in the montane belt) and S.nutanssubsp.dubia (occupies rocky and stony slopes in the montane and subalpine belts).

Silene zawadzkii

Herbich, Enum. Pl. Galic. Bucow.: 191 (1835)

D376ECC9-F895-5B4C-BF1B-C6ABAD101D5D

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/9YK58

https://www.gbif.org/species/5587094

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:158695-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000439914

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/158695-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Silene_zawadzkii

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/807e3ed7-4af8-4f62-ae46-a23e4f845c28

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Silene-zawadzkii

Conservation status

In Ukraine – VU (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

A rare species that occurs in the Ukrainian Carpathians only in the Chyvchyny Mts. (Chorney 2009a, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021). This species was considered to belong to the genera Melandrium Röhl., Elisanthe Rchb. or Silenanthe Griseb. & Schenk. It was also considered a synonym of Silenevulgaris(Moench)Garckesubsp.vulgaris, but recent molecular studies showed that this narrow endemic is an independent and well-separated species nested within Silenesect.Physolichnis s.l. (Martyniuk et al. 2018, Petri and Oxelman 2019, Jafari et al. 2020).

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/3814125, accessed on 18.06.2023), WFO (http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001292100, accessed on 18.06.2023) and Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/807e3ed7-4af8-4f62-ae46-a23e4f845c28, accessed on 18.06.2023) provide the name Melandriumzawadskii (Herbich) A.Braun with reference to Braun (1843). This name is quite popular and often used in the Ukrainian herbaria and regional floras. However, in the original publication, Braun (1843) did not apply such a combination. Instead, he used the name Silenezawadskii and only indicated that this species belongs to the group Melandrien (Elisanthen). Therefore, it is not clear who was the actual author of the combination M.zawadskii and whether it was validly published at all.

Plumbaginaceae

0E05B27A-9CD1-5EDF-9F87-C17887C8B042

Armeria pocutica

Pawł., Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 8: 399 (1962)

20966748-D0D6-5CD7-A532-DB205E948AA2

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5W4RS

https://www.gbif.org/species/5668250

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:686381-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000549162

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/686381-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/fd28cfaf-32e3-44bc-85d6-fa1e03aabe18

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Armeria-pocutica

  • – Armeriaelongata auct., non (Hoffm.) Koch

  • – Armeriamaritimasubsp.elongata auct., non (Hoffm.) Bonnier

  • – Armeriavulgaris auct., non Willd.

Conservation status

In Ukraine – RE (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

This species is extinct in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Kagalo and Sytschak 2009b, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

Dipsacales

6D6E676A-A96F-5652-B84A-4F3758CADFAB

Caprifoliaceae

9C1D315E-7E57-5F41-93E4-6BDEFA803CEA

Scabiosa lucida barbata

Nyár., Enum. Pl. Vasc. Cheia Turzii: 280 (1939)

EA6C5BDD-7392-5A47-8AD4-3B080F676963

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/B89FK

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77252742-1

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77252742-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/8580928c-4139-4518-914f-d08b075d3436

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Scabiosa-lucida

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

There are four (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/319978-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) to five (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e6eec090-a11f-40b2-a8d1-a9f47863d58f, accessed on 05.06.2023) accepted subspecies of S.lucidaVill. –subsp.lucida (non-endemic taxon distributed in European mountains, starting from ca. 1000 m elevation – Štěpánek and Holub (1997)), subsp. calcicola Błoński (endemic of W Carpathians – Štěpánek and Holub (1997), Danihelka et al. (2012)), subsp. pseudobanatica (Schur) Holub (problematic taxon with Carpathian-Pannonian distribution range that prefers lower elevations and occurs in Ukraine, Slovakia and Romania, but often overlooked or confused – Chrtek (1985), Chrtek and Goliašová (1985), Tasenkevich (2006)), subsp. stricta (Waldst. & Kit.) Jasiewicz (distributed in southern Europe) and subsp. barbata Nyár. (south-eastern Carpathian endemic – Kliment et al. (2016)).

In the Flora of UkrSSR (Kotov 1961: p. 378), S.lucidais indicated as havingvar.subalpina (Brügger) Hegi with S.subalpina Brügger, Zur. Fl. Tirol (1860) amongst its synonyms. However, POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77227194-1, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000500277, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Scabiosa-columbaria, accessed on 07.06.2023) indicate S.subalpina to be a synonym for S.columbaria L., a quite distinct species. After checking, it was found that Brügger did not describe S.subalpina in his mentioned work “Zur Flora Tirols” (Brügger 1860). IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/n/320160-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) says that Brügger described this species much later, in 1887–1888 (i.e. S.subalpina Brügger, Jahresber. Naturf. Ges. Graubündens 31, Beil. 82 (1887-88). However, this is also wrong because IPNI references the work of Killias (1887), who only repeated an epithet subalpina for S.columbariasubsp.subalpina (the rank of subspecies is indicated by the author in the taxon’s description) following Brügger (1874), who, in turn, published this subspecies without the protologue. Considering the mistake in IPNI, it is worth noting that complete and correct nomenclatural citations for this subspecies should be S.columbariasubsp.subalpina Brügger, Fl. Cur.: 65 (1874) [nom. nudum] and S.columbariasubsp.subalpina (Brügger) Killias, Jahresber. Naturf. Ges. Graubündens 31: 82 (1887–1888). Nevertheless, this does not answer the question about where the initial Brügger’s species name has been applied. In fact, Brügger first applied the epithet subalpina in 1874 (without any protologue provided) and later, in 1886, with a subsequent self-reprint of the last paper in the same 1886 that, however, has changed pagination (Brügger 1874, Brügger 1886a, Brügger 1886b). Therefore the correct nomenclatural citation for this species should be S.subalpina Brügger, Fl. Cur.: 65 (1874) [nom. nudum] et Jahresber. Nat. Gesell. Graubünd.: 137 (1886). Brügger (1886a) and Brügger (1886b) described S.subalpina as an intermediate species between S.columbaria and S.lucida. It was Hayek and Hegi (1908), who, on page 308, determined S.subalpina belonging to S.lucida and applied the combination S.lucidavar.subalpina (Brügger) Hayek & Hegi, Ill. Fl. Mitt.-Eur. 6(1): 308 (1908). Schur (1866) also believed that subalpina plants belong to the lucida group and applied the new name Asterocephaluslucidus [unranked] b. subalpinus Schur, Enum. Pl. Transssilv.: 300 (1866). Later, Pawłowski (Planta Poloniae Exsiccata deposited at KW) synonymised S.lucidavar.subalpina with S.lucidavar.lucida Considering this, I believe that the mentioned databases mistakenly synonymise S.subalpina (and derivatives) with S.columbaria. Instead, S.subalpina should be considered as a synonym of S.lucida. Moreover, after herbarium inspection, I found that at least part of the specimens identified as S.lucidavar.subalpina belong to S.lucidasubsp.barbata.

It is important to note that Brügger mentioned many taxa (e.g. Hepatica rhaetica, Malus hortensis, Batrachium micranthum, Nasturtium montanum etc.) for the first in Flora Сuriensis (Brügger 1874); however, this book is entirely ignored by IPNI and, consequently, many other databases, for some reason.

Ericales

B98F9275-FB93-5317-99C1-288FB048AE81

Ericaceae

84FB99E5-96FE-5622-BA99-7D9FD22E22B4

Pyrola carpatica

Holub et Křísa, Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 6(1): 82 (1971)

9871E597-4ACC-5FBE-BB22-0607419A75C8

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6WQBQ

https://www.gbif.org/species/4171403

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:706939-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000396313

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/706939-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/ab1d2989-c95f-4369-9f82-7c9ceb6aca26

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Pyrola-carpatica

https://prc.jacq.org/PRC454358

https://prc.jacq.org/PRC454359

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.prc454359

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.prc454358

  • ≡ Pyrolarotundifoliasubsp.carpatica (Holub & Křísa) Váczy & Beldie, Fl. Rep. Soc. Rom. 13: 46 (1976)

  • – Pyrolaintermedia auct., non Schleich. ex Arcang.

  • – Pyrolaintermedia Schleich. sensu Szafer in Kulczyński & Pawłowski, Rośliny Polskie: 459 (1924) [nom. illeg.], non Schleich. ex Arcang., Comp. Fl. Ital.: 460 (1882)

  • – Pyrolarotundifolia [unranked] arenaria Scheele sensu Jáv., Magyar Fl.: 797 (1924)

  • – Pyrolarotundifoliasubsp.intermedia (Alef.) Wohlfahrt in W.D.J.Koch, Syn. Deut. Schweiz. Fl., Bd. 2: 1946 (1902) [p. p., tantum quod plantas carpat.]; GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/12116320

  • – Pyrolarotundifoliasubsp.intermedia(Schleich.) Dostál, Květena ČSR: 1115 (1949) [p. p., tantum quod plantas carpat., excl.var.arenaria Koch; nom. illeg.]; GBIF: https://www.gbif.org/species/11041003

Conservation status

In Ukraine – CR (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

High-mountain species occurring in the Ukrainian Carpathians only in a few subalpine and alpine habitats on Chornohora and Svydovets (Holub and Křísa 1971, Parnikoza and Gilchuk 2002, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015).

Primulaceae

6E98A68B-73F4-575C-8168-E9EF4CC5681C

Soldanella hungarica

Simonk., Enum Fl. Transsilv.: 461 (1886) et Oesterr. Bot. Z. 39: 219 (1889)

ACCF6078-CBB3-576B-A17F-C208E6D5BFB0

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4Y57T

https://www.gbif.org/species/4005274

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:702873-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000504539

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/702873-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/2946e82e-d01f-4883-aba9-46020cc08b2e

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Soldanella-hungarica

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10524596#page/525

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

Soldanellahungarica is a critical taxon considered here in a broad sense due to its unclear chorology and taxonomy in the Ukrainian Carpathians, with provisional aggregation of S.hungarica Simonk. [s. str.], S.major (Neilr.) Vierh. in Urban & Graebn. and S.marmarossiensis Klášt. that are recognised separately by Zhang and Kadereit (2004).

Fabales

CA89DA9D-29A4-50C2-AB1D-0F9D4185919E

Fabaceae

199A91D3-D790-5FB4-88ED-CCCD73378EEB

Genista tinctoria oligosperma

(Andrae) Soó, Feddes Repert. 83(3): 169 (1972)

0B9F29EE-4AC0-5B7B-B43A-65D936A5CE3C

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/9DRQQ

https://www.gbif.org/species/8231729

https://www.gbif.org/species/7840990

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:885285-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000208982

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/885285-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/120f2415-eff0-4cbd-bc7c-04d4e826ac24

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Genista-tinctoria

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

There are two (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Genista-tinctoria, accessed on 07.06.2023) to five (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/496408-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) subspecies within G.tinctoria L. – subsp. tinctoria (has a wide Eurasian distribution with a secondary presence on other continents), subsp. ovata (Waldst. & Kit.) Arcang. (has a western–south-eastern European distribution), subsp. insubrica (Brügger) Pignatti (endemic to Italy, sometimes, for example, by Worldplants, considered as a synonym of subsp. tinctoria), subsp. littoralis (Corb.) Rothm. (occurs in France and Italy, sometimes considered a synonym of subsp. tinctoria) and subsp. oligosperma (occurs in Ukrainian and Romanian Carpathians).

Genistatinctoriasubsp.oligosperma has been considered extinct for the Ukrainian Carpathians and previously has been reported only from the Maramures Mts. (Kagalo 2009). However, Kobiv et al. (2017) recently rediscovered a small population on Mt. Berlebashka (Latundur) in the Maramures Mts. Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015) also mentioned this subspecies for Pip Ivan Chornohirskiy Mt. (Chornohora Mts.). However, the presence of G.tinctoriasubsp.oligosperma in Chornohora Mts. requires validation because I found no respective herbarium material, except a doubtful (hard to identify unambiguously) specimen of Fodor collected from ‘Polonyna Kvasy’ in 1966 (unnumbered specimen deposited at UU).

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/5347632, https://www.gbif.org/species/11406566, accessed on 05.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/885285-1, accessed on 05.06.2023) and WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000208982, accessed on 05.06.2023) mistakenly indicate that G.tenuifolia Loisel. and G.tinctoria subsp. tenuifolia (Loisel.) Pignatti are synonyms of G.tinctoria subsp. oligosperma. Genistatenuifolia has been described from Cavaglià in Piedmont, Italy (Loiseleur-Deslongchamps 1810) and has nothing in common with G.tinctoriasubsp.oligosperma.

Lathyrus transsilvanicus

(Spreng.) Rchb.f., Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. 22: t. 220, fig. 4, nr. 8-12 (1886)

08129659-B3F7-5AFD-986B-3236A4BDED60

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/9D78Y

https://www.gbif.org/species/5356553

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:502057-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000209548

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/502057-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lathyrus_transsylvanicus

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/399ea63e-d18b-499b-9eed-0b615c34b13c

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Lathyrus-transsylvanicus

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Obsolescent species, which is narrowly distributed only in the volcanic part of the Ukrainian Carpathians. It is listed by the Red Book of Ukraine (Prots and Kish 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/8318457) provides the name L.laevigatussubsp.transsylvanicus (Spreng.) Soó without indicating the publication details, which seems to be some technical mistake since I could not locate a publication where Soó applied such a name.

Trifolium sarosiense

Hazsl., Éjsz. Magyarh. Vir.: 76 (1864) et Hazsl. ex Neilr., Diagn. Gefaesspfl.: 35 (1864)

BA0F3996-5935-5045-9EA1-85CB1E21FE42

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/58Q5X

https://www.gbif.org/species/5358815

https://www.gbif.org/species/8013811

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:523672-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000163734

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/523672-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trifolium_medium_var._sarosiense

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/61648c41-a0e4-4b5d-adb9-cda45bced2c5

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Trifolium-medium

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NE (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

For T.mediumvar.sarosiense, GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7456349, accessed on 05.06.2023) mistakenly indicated the authorship (Hazsl.) Săvul. & Rayss. Instead of this, it should be (Hazsl.) A.Nyár. in Săvul. (Săvulescu 1952).

Gentianales

1C1FBF4C-CC60-5040-8690-A156B20F3416

Gentianaceae

5232C2F9-487D-5992-83D0-95FD01640B6E

Gentiana laciniata

Kit. ex Kanitz, Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 12: 572 (1862)

791836EE-AA8D-569E-9F09-B1E53D6271B4

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3FMBY

https://www.gbif.org/species/7483254

https://www.gbif.org/species/7654718

https://www.gbif.org/species/9234218

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77205254-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000698412

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77205254-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gentiana_pyrenaica

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/eea7efa0-65c0-4870-963d-199a771d42d8

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Gentiana-pyrenaica

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/95692#page/112

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

The Red Book of Ukraine lists this species as rare (Zyman and Shiyan 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

This species is of unclear taxonomy and chorology. In Ukraine, it is often equated with G.pyrenaica L. (Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk 2015). Tutin (1972) also considered G.laciniata a synonym of G.pyrenaica. In GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7270399, accessed on 05.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000698412, accessed on 05.06.2023) and Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/eea7efa0-65c0-4870-963d-199a771d42d8, accessed on 05.06.2023), G.laciniata is also regarded as a synonym of G.pyrenaica. However, Tzvelev (1978) argued its independent position due to differences in calyx morphology (3–5 mm long laciniate vs. 2–3 mm long ovate-laciniate segments) and distribution (Carpathian vs. Pyrenean). Kliment et al. (2016), based on the studies of Rybczyński et al. (2014), who showed its isolated position from G.pyrenaica, also concluded that G.laciniata is an independent species, an eastern Carpathian endemic narrowly distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Nevertheless, Zuev (2019) later reconsidered it as a subspecies within the genus Ciminalis, i.e. C.dshimilensissubsp.laciniata (Kit. ex Kanitz) Zuev and indicated a much wider, Caucasian-Balkanian-Carpathian, distribution. Zuev (2019) also proposed a new combination for G.pyrenaica – Ciminalispyrenaica (L.) Zuev and placed it together with C.dshimilensissubsp.laciniata in the same section Pyrenaicae (Grossh.) Zuev. However, he did not indicate either distribution or morphological differences between C.pyrenaica and C.dshimilensissubsp.L.ciniata. Later, Favre et al. (2020) made several taxonomic recombinations, based on molecular data. In particular, Favre et al. (2020) placed G.pyrenaica into the section Chondrophyllae Bunge (≡ Ciminalissect.Chondrophyllae (Bunge) Zuev), but the position and identity of G.laciniata remained unclear. Hence, due to controversial opinions, the taxonomic status and chorology of G.laciniata require further discussion.

Swertia punctata

Baumg., Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 1: 190 (1816)

B9DF5C86-F0FC-5BA0-AF47-70490EBD9C4F

https://www.gbif.org/species/5595494

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:371052-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000498017

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/371052-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Swertia_perennis_subsp._perennis

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/8849d45a-513e-4769-be0e-172d4a9dc41f

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Swertia-perennis

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/5595494, accessed on 06.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/371096-1, accessed on 06.06.2023) and WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000498017, accessed on 06.06.2023) provide S.stigmantha K.Koch amongst the synonyms of S.punctata. However, S.stigmantha has been described from Kazbek Mt. in the Caucasus and in its protologue, it was indicated that this species is just similar to S.perennis L. and S.punctata (Koch 1850: pp. 586–587). Perhaps, due to the occasional synonymisation of S.stigmantha and S.punctata within the framework of S.perennis, these two species were considered as direct synonyms. However, they are not – S.punctata occurs in the Carpathians and has only a few confirmed localities outside these mountains – in Bulgaria and Kosovo (Tan and Vladimirov 2001, Anchev et al. 2009, Kliment et al. 2016).

Boissier (1879), on page 78, mentioned S.punctata for Hungarian Mts. and Transylvania and provided S . perennis in the sense of M.Bieb., non L. amongst its synonyms. However, for some reason, he also included the Caucasian plants S.iberica Fisch. ex C.A.Mey. and S.obtusavar.albiflora Ledeb. in S.punctata.

Rubiaceae

C91A0FD6-89BA-5F3C-A487-F01EBCF45643

Galium album suberectum

(Klokov) Michálk., Karpatskaja Fl.: 78 (1988) et Biología, Bot. (Czechoslovakia) 48(1): 48 (1993)

35E34EB3-E8C5-5264-BCBA-4044C28FF329

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7JSZR

https://www.gbif.org/species/2915138

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:975731-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000968241

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001257913

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/975731-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e9e55f52-c0a6-4ff1-bfc2-850fc687fe7c

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Galium-album

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Galium transcarpaticum

Stojko et Tasenk., Ukr. Bot. J. 36(6): 594 (1979)

DB4983DA-7B4B-5650-9020-F2521EE40E36

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3F6MG

https://www.gbif.org/species/2914196

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:750754-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000970423

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/750754-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d23eb453-2c4e-44b0-88b7-a1017ad5b096

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Galium-transcarpaticum

https://www.jacq.org/detail.php?ID=406667

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.lws0017273

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Controversial species (probably a local morphotype of Galiumalbumsubsp.suberectum) with an unclear systematic position (Stojko and Tasenkevich 1979). It was excluded from the new edition of the Flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015) due to its ambiguous delimiting morphological features and almost total absence of specimens identified as G.transcarpaticum by other researchers besides Tasenkevich. However, it was accepted by Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk (1999) and still listed as an endangered species by Onyshchenko et al. (2022) due to the absence of any further investigations on this species. Only for this reason, despite solid doubts, I retained this species as valid in the current list.

Lamiales

F5C3D9DD-B001-5C87-B371-8E0E97AAAB1D

Lamiaceae

FCD92A74-AC37-5138-BBEB-8D08025109CD

Thymus alternans

Klokov, Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk SSSR 16: 293 (1954)

F788E7CD-3A05-5852-A56C-DC23F9218BCE

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/56QNV

https://www.gbif.org/species/5607756

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:460875-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000323669

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/460875-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d4cedbae-5fc0-4f8a-b5cc-deeb11ca2ad4

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Thymus-alternans

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d4cedbae-5fc0-4f8a-b5cc-deeb11ca2ad4, accessed on 06.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Thymus-roegneri, accessed on 06.06.2023) consider T.alternans a synonym of T.roegneri K.Koch, which is widely distributed. However, Kliment et al. (2016) suggest it to be a valid subendemic species. Mártonfi (1996), Nachychko (2014) and Nachychko and Honcharenko (2017) also support the independence of T.alternans. Nevertheless, T.alternans plants from the Ukrainian Carpathians were sometimes misidentified as T.roegneri.

Thymus pulcherrimus pulcherrimus

Schur, Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 10: 140 (1859) et Enum. Pl. Transssilv.: 526 (1866)

5C904E4F-7DA2-578A-80DF-05B2FBD16E8A

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/56RBT

https://www.gbif.org/species/7306766

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:461561-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000324604

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/461561-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thymus_pulcherrimus

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/633a82db-648d-4296-8a92-d38b5b1d68af

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Thymus-pulcherrimus

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11528081#page/384

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

Mártonfi (1997) delimited T.pulcherimussubsp.carpaticus(=subsp.sudeticus (Lyka) P.A.Schmidt) distributed in the western Carpathians and Sudetes from the eastern Carpathian subspecies T.pulcherimussubsp.pulcherimus (Mártonfi and Marhold 1998, Štěpánek and Tomšovic 2000). Amongst synonyms of T.pulcherimussubsp.carpaticus, Mártonfi (1997) surprisingly indicated T.circumcinctus Klokov, which has been described from the eastern Carpathians (Klokov 1960: pp. 301–302). However, in the following paper (Mártonfi and Marhold 1998), this confusing synonym and some other synonyms have been excluded.

Oleaceae

6C6A7332-368C-56DF-B73A-B5E5A582F0D1

Syringa josikaea

J.Jacq. ex Rchb.f., Iconogr. Bot. Pl. Crit. 8: 32 (1830) et J.Jacq., Flora 14(1): 67, 399 (1831)

CCC359D9-B7F5-5927-892E-ED543D718EC9

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/8X5YV

https://www.gbif.org/species/7636833

https://www.gbif.org/species/5549698

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60466522-2

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:611121-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000818449

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/60466522-2?_gl=1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Syringa_josikaea

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/b96456c9-76ec-444e-a8ff-6e36428ecf45

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Syringa-josikaea

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27340#page/72

Conservation status

In Ukraine – VU (Onyshchenko et al. 2022). Global – EN (Höhn and Lendvay 2018).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

This vulnerable species is listed by the Red Book of Ukraine (Mygal et al. 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021) and by IUCN Red List (Höhn and Lendvay 2018).

Vasiliev (1952) and Macalik et al. (2013) mentioned S.prunifolia as a synonym of S.josikaea, but provided incorrect taxonomic authorship Kit. in Sched. ex Borbás, while the proper authorship is Kit. ex Lingelsh. (https://www.ipni.org/n/611152-1, accessed on 07.07.2023).

Orobanchaceae

7DA4D268-DD08-581C-BB71-1967D24BA9E6

Euphrasia tatrae

Wettst., Oesterr. Bot. Z. 44: 248 (1894)

680B0EC1-6BB4-5197-AFCF-9DCC1E655132

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3CS5Z

https://www.gbif.org/species/3736062

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:802898-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000682687

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/802898-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/3f527fb0-810c-433f-a045-dbc651817be3

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Euphrasia-tatrae

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/openurlmultiple.aspx?id=p28757191|p8735912

https://kfta.jacq.org/KFTA0001455

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0037599

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0037600

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0037601

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0037602

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mpu020694

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.g00356782

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mpu020693

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.kfta0001455

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Wettstein, who described E.tatrae in 1894, later distinguished E.tatraef.glandulifera Wettst. by the presence of glandular trichomes (Wettstein 1894, Wettstein 1896). However, he noted that plants with glandular and eglandular trichomes co-occur and can probably hybridise. Staszkiewicz (2015) raised this form to rank of subspecies and delimited subsp. tatrae and subsp. glandulifera (Wettst.) Staszk. Staszkiewicz (2015) also noted that E.tatraesubsp.glandulifera is a hybrid of E.rostkoviana Hayne and E.nemorosa (Pers.) Wallr. Euphrasiatatraesubsp.glandulifera is not mentioned for the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians, but both mentioned parental species occur there and, therefore, the presence of their hybrid is highly possible. It is also worth noting that Mirek et al. (2020) consider E.tatrae as a synonym of E.minima Jacq. ex DC. At the same time, Tzvelev (1981) and Peregrym (2010) believed that E.minima and E.tatrae are two different species. He pointed out that E.minima occurs in more western areas of Europe and does not occur in the USSR (i.e. in the Ukrainian Carpathians), where it is displaced by E.tatrae. Hence, due to the absence of special morphological studies of E.tatrae in the Ukrainian Carpathians and its questionable taxonomy, here I am not delimiting the subspecies or forms within this species and consider E.tatraesubsp./f.glandulifera a synonym of E.tatrae.

Plantaginaceae

C3367436-B3DB-57EE-9926-5F9EEE405886

Plantago atrata carpatica

(Pilg.) Soó, Acta Geobot. Hung. 3: 61 (1940)

224B26CD-A3C1-5A54-BDFE-3EAD6F5CA555

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5KH8H

https://www.gbif.org/species/7624228

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77252604-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-1200011825

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77252604-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/8cf71b0a-d70e-47e4-a6fc-328e266ce518

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Plantago-atrata

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

There are nine subspecies of P.atrata Hoppe, from which only P.atratasubsp.carpatica is usually reported for the Ukrainian Carpathians. However, Chrtek (2000) also delimited P.atratasubsp.ucrainica Chrtek that, as he indicated, mainly occurs in the Svydovets Mts. Besides this, he mentioned the presence of this subspecies in Romania (Slănic Moldova and Retezat). Plantagoatratasubsp.ucrainica differs by erect ascending (vs. decumbent to prostrate in P.atratasubsp.carpatica), longer (up to 17 cm long vs. 14 cm in P.atratasubsp.carpatica) and more narrow (up to 8 mm wide vs. 16 mm P.atratasubsp.carpatica) leaves. Distribution and phylogenetic position of P.atratasubsp.ucrainica still requires clarifications since, after Chrtek (2000), there were no further corresponding investigations on this subspecies.

The combination P.montanasubsp.carpatica Soó, Acta Geobot. Hung. 2: 40 (1938–1939) and consequent recombination P.atratasubsp.carpatica (Soó) Soó, Acta Geobot. Hung. 3: 61 (1940), commonly circulated in the checklists, seem to be incorrect because it was Pilger who first applied the epithet carpathica in the name P.montanasubsp.atratavar.carpathica Pilg. in 1926 (Pilger 1926). Later, in 1937, Pilger introduced a new combination P.atratasubsp.atratavar.carpathica (Pilg.) Pilg. (Pilger 1937). It looks like Soó made further taxonomic recombinations, based on these two Pilger’s names, but, unfortunately, I could not locate the original works of Soó regarding P.atrata to check.

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/11030083, accessed on 06.06.2023) incorrectly provides the name P.atratasubsp.carpathica (Pilg.) Pilg. It should be either P.atratavar.carpathica (Pilg.) Pilg. (incorrect taxonomic rank is indicated) or P.atratasubsp.carpatica (Pilg.) Soó (the incorrect authorship is provided). In both cases, the entry is duplicating other existing records.

Scrophulariaceae

F9E9C8FB-262A-5E76-9B75-BA4FBD915E07

Melampyrum saxosum

Baumg., Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 2: 199 (1816)

C2760214-A3FC-512F-B90F-1C3480BE8A48

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6R9T5

https://www.gbif.org/species/3725032

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:805724-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001138715

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/805724-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/6a35a594-7f27-40ef-8379-37fa68e734fe

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Melampyrum-saxosum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Capathian endemic.

Notes

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7331709, accessed on 06.06.2023), CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3Z5BY, accessed on 06.06.2023), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0001138706, accessed on 06.06.2023) and Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/dd655aaa-26d0-4250-8474-fdb870a3cea8) consider M.herbichii Woł. an independent species. However, Štech and Drábková (2005) and Těšitel and Štech (2007) concluded that M.herbichii is morphologically identical to M.saxosum and differs only by perianth colouration. Later, Těšitel et al. (2009), based on comprehensive morphological and molecular analyses, confirmed that these two species are to be united.

Malpighiales

7FCF33E0-BD65-5478-A5FD-76DD729CC87E

Linaceae

6975270F-438C-51D1-9EBC-A13E793194B2

Linum extraaxillare

Kit. ex Rochel, Pl. Banat. Rar.: 26 (1828) [nom. nudum] et Kit., Linnaea 32(4-5): 573 (1864)

59225B6E-123D-5C8F-BD49-F7FFFBFAA2E2

https://www.gbif.org/species/4049149

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:544466-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000363481

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/544466-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linum_extraaxillare

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/2e6f70ed-2b39-4165-b65a-3fc35efc0590

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Linum-perenne

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/118664#page/576

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Salicaceae

BD0E4931-D0D7-529D-BBAD-AE4FB29A721B

Salix kitaibeliana

Willd., Sp. Pl., ed. 4 [Willdenow] 4(2): 683-684 (1806)

1F958268-A9F1-5A69-AA2B-15022B24C335

https://www.gbif.org/species/5583534

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:777938-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000928719

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/777938-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/fbc32a8d-dcc0-4db9-8ae3-d3cad32cc004

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Salix-retusa

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/566410#page/52

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

A rare species listed by the Red Book of Ukraine (Danylyk 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021) with an unclear taxonomic position.

In all databases that were accessed on 06.06.2023, including CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6XDTN), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/8119241), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/778676-1), Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/fbc32a8d-dcc0-4db9-8ae3-d3cad32cc004) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Salix-retusa), S.kitaibeliana is provided as a synonym for S.retusa L., a Paneuropean mountainous species. Similarly, it is synonymised with S.retusa by many Ukrainian authors (e.g. Mosyakin and Fedoronchuk (1999), Danylyk (2009), Chorney (2011), Ishchuk (2017)). It is also synonymised by Kucowa (1954) and Mirek et al. (2020). However, Kliment et al. (2016), like some other authors (e.g. Piscová et al. (2021)), consider S.kitaibeliana as an independent species. Chopyk and Fedoronchuk (2015) noted that these two species are very close, but also still delimited them, based on the differences in the leaf morphology (leaves are up to 2 cm long obovate, with a retuse tip in S.retusa and up to 4 cm long, oblong-obovate, with a pointed tip in S.kitaibeliana). The same differences in the leaf morphology applied to delimit S.kitaibeliana and S.retusa in the Flora of Romania (Beldie 1952), where they are, however, provided in the rank of varieties. Salixretusa s. str. is considered in the Flora of Romania as S.retusavar.genuina Rchb. and S.kitaibeliana – as S.retusavar.kitaibeliana (Willd.) Rchb. Additionally, Beldie (1952) mentioned differences in their habitus (short creeping stems and branches in S.retusa and firm and sometimes ascending stems in S.kitaibeliana). The difference in the leaf morphology of these two species was statistically confirmed by Kosiński and Adreas Hilpold (2017). However, later phylogenetic studies (Kosiński et al. 2019) regarding ploidy did not allow delimiting S.kitaibeliana.

It is worth noting that Pawłowski (1946) also recognised S.retusa and S.kitaibeliana separately. He pointed out that, despite these two species often co-occurring, S.retusa prefers lime substrates while S.kitaibeliana mainly grows on granite outcrops and rocks. Myklestad and Birks (1993) partially confirmed such ecological differentiation of these two species in their ecogeographical studies – on the provided graphs, S.kitaibeliana is well separated from S.retusa.

Violaceae

96F5CC7F-03B1-5681-9922-C104F1781B5C

Viola declinata

Waldst. et Kit., Descr. Icon. Pl. Rar. Hung. 3: 248 (1807)

1792E949-8F6E-5CE7-A6DB-743B36EC72C6

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5BGMT

https://www.gbif.org/species/5664655

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:868009-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000424016

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/868009-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Viola_declinata

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/02a632cf-6c07-4887-adef-70bd54e7d0ec

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Viola-declinata

https://w.jacq.org/W0020444

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.m0112758

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Capathian endemic.

Notes

Violadeclinata is often considered a Carpatho-Balkanic species (Kricsfalusy and Budnikov 2002, Oprea 2005, Ciocârlan 2009). However, Velev and Apostolova (2009) reported that it does not occur in Serbia and Bulgaria, as suggested before. Considering the questionable presence of V.declinata in the Balkans (perhaps it is introduced), Chorney (2011) and Kliment et al. (2016) considered it a Carpathian endemic.

POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/868009-1, accessed on 06.06.2023) erroneously indicates V.latisepala Wettst. amongst synonyms of V.declinata. Violalatisepala (= V.elegantula subsp. latisepala (Wettst.) W.Becker) is a problematic taxon, which is often considered a synonym for V.elegantula, a Balkan endemic (Valentine et al. 1968, Tomović et al. 2016). Currently V.latisepala is considered as a synonym for V.tricolor L. (Marcussen et al. 2022). Moreover, there are some other species (e.g. V.aetolica Boiss. & Heldr. and V.dacica Borbás) that are occasionally misidentified as V.L.tisepala. (Tomović et al. 2014).

Ranunculales

8CA65C83-E9F0-590D-985E-68604F665D89

Ranunculaceae

CB351E34-ADA0-5AE1-8703-987D8C919D28

Aconitum bucovinense

Zapał., Rozpr. Wydz. Mat.-Przyr. Akad. Umiej., Dział B. Nauki Biol. 48: 8990 (1908)

A247946B-6F5A-52D6-A96D-6CE94417A95E

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/8S2V7

https://www.gbif.org/species/3926782

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707221-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517006

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/707221-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/3e3c3e87-e094-4e54-ae24-fef1882829ed

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Aconitum-bucovinense

Conservation status

In Ukraine – EN (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

The nomenclature and synonymy of the genus Aconitum L. follow Mitka (2003), Mitka (2008) and Mitka et al. (2021) with my minor additions and some notes.

Aconitum firmum firmum

Rchb., Uebers. Aconitum: 20 (1819)

79940187-0E49-5AAD-871A-61A321108B99

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FDHQ

https://www.gbif.org/species/7277350

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707355-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517247

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/51035059-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aconitum_firmum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7f24502b-f9bb-438a-93e5-be837558865e

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-firmum

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.bm000613691

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.bm000613690

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.bm000613679

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7569378, accessed on 06.06.2023) incorrectly provides A.callibotryonsubsp.scarisorense Grinţ. as a synonym for A.firmumsubsp.firmum. At the same time, GBIF correctly indicates that A.napellussubsp.scarisorense (Grinţ.) Jalas (https://www.gbif.org/species/3922734, accessed on 06.06.2023), a homotypic synonym of A.callibotryonsubsp.scarisorense, belongs to A.firmumsubsp.skerisorae (Gáyer) Starm. (https://www.gbif.org/species/10985587, accessed on 06.06.2023).

Aconitum firmum fissurae

Nyár., Enum. Pl. Cheia Turzii: 132 (1939)

88BB089A-CCB7-500E-B9A6-30D8D03E9A99

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/8S9QC

https://www.gbif.org/species/7501250

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77122905-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517252

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77122905-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/e6d4ad09-6515-4fc2-a11c-22936e7e1aa9

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-firmum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/10985587, accessed on 06.06.2023) incorrectly provides A.napellussubsp.fissurae amongst synonyms to A.firmumsubsp.skerisorae (Gáyer) Starm. Aconitumfirmumsubsp.skerisorae is an independent subspecies endemic to Transylvania (Starmühller 2000).

Aconitum degenii degenii

Gáyer, Magyar Bot. Lapok 5: 123 (1906)

7F790C7B-DBC9-5BA1-AEFF-C2EA53D6AF51

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FDH6

https://www.gbif.org/species/7276900

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707304-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517153

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77122903-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aconitum_degenii

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/4bf508f8-0fb6-42b5-8ea2-8cbe48db894a

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-degenii

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022). Global – LC (Mitka 2019).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Aconitum lasiocarpum kotulae

(Pawł.) Starm. & Mitka, Acta Soc. Bot. Polon. 69(2): 150 (2000)

EBA09984-85B5-5FFB-8E8F-9803C49176F5

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7J77P

https://www.gbif.org/species/3923695

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:1017003-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517522

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/1017003-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/4c78b8c9-e199-41f4-8248-3c3be1940167

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-lasiocarpum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – VU (Onyshchenko et al. 2022). Global – NT (Novikov and Mitka 2019).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Aconitumlasiocarpum (Rchb.) Gáyer is listed in the Red Book of Ukraine as vulnerable species without delimitation of subspecies (Melnyk and Batochenko 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

Aconitum lasiocarpum lasiocarpum

(Rchb.) Gáyer, Magyar Bot. Lapok 11: 199 (1911)

6A5C7F32-E56F-504E-AB26-2C0B28379164

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FDJF

https://www.gbif.org/species/7277095

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:707516-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517521

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77227837-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aconitum_lasiocarpum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/ac18631e-47c1-4016-9e69-aaed03e08cbf

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-lasiocarpum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – VU (Onyshchenko et al. 2022). Global – NT (Novikov and Mitka 2019).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

This vulnerable species is listed in the Red Book of Ukraine without clarification of the subspecies (Melnyk and Batochenko 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

Aconitum moldavicum hosteanum

(Schur) Graebn. et P.Graebn., Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 5(2): 725 (1929)

2BA646EC-F6E4-5A0C-A409-D044C989F0CD

https://www.gbif.org/species/8062401

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77249320-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517652

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77249320-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/a8dc028d-0922-4f47-ba8f-1894176c0424

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-lycoctonum

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25296776#page/735

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Following the Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-lycoctonum, accessed on 06.06.2023), CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5FDJJ, accessed on 06.06.2023) and GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/3923267, accessed on 06.06.2023), they provide outdated taxonomy for A.moldavicum Hacq. and consider it belonging to A.lycoctonumsubsp.moldavicum (Hacq.) Jalas. Such consideration is based, perhaps, on the research of Utelli et al. (2000), who showed the phylogenetic affinity of A.moldavicum and A.lycoctonum L. in Europe and proposed to delimit its morphs as subspecies. Mitka et al. (2013), Mitka et al. (2016) have further discussed and stressed this question in the context of the biogeography of the genus Aconitum L. in the Carpathians. Anatomical studies (Novikoff 2010) also showed that, besides the common features (well-developed differentiated two-layered lignified parenchymal ring and occurrence of peripheral vascular bundles in the stem), A.lycoctonum and A.moldavicum differ by the position of sclerenchymatous strands supporting the vascular bundles in their stems. In A.moldavicum, the parenchyma layer is present between the vascular bundles and sclerenchymatous strands, while, in A.lycoctonum, it is absent. Morphological variation allowing to delimit subspecies within A.moldavicum was not taken into account by Utelli et al. (2000), but was studied in detail by Mitka (2008). Hence, A.moldavicum is currently considered an independent species with a developed infraspecific structure (Mitka and Kozioł 2009, Novikov and Mitka 2020 and Novikov and Mitka 2020).

GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/11040564, accessed on 06.06.2023) has a technical mistake and provides the name A.moldavicumsubsp.nothoconfusum (Grin.) A.Novikov – it should be A.moldavicum nothosubsp. confusum (Grinƫ.) A.Novikov.

Aconitum moldavicum moldavicum

Hacq. ex Rchb., Uebers. Gat. Aconitum: 67 (1819)

1F9900B3-1F4C-54D5-91CC-7B9A5046D372

https://www.gbif.org/species/8058146

https://www.gbif.org/species/7276954

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77319987-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000517651

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77227195-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aconitum_moldavicum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/ea0a74d3-376c-4931-82c2-63fd1f84fedb

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Aconitum-lycoctonum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Ranunculus carpaticus

Herbich, Sel. Pl. Rar. Gallic.: 15 (1836), non Wahlenb. ex Nyman

9E63B9E5-DAC4-5A0B-897F-A2B1223EC38C

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4RFXM

https://www.gbif.org/species/3921904

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:712424-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000460647

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/712424-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ranunculus_carpaticus

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/d8e20ade-0c13-4253-a130-e2f9c2f68b34

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Ranunculus-carpaticus

https://je.jacq.org/JE00021608

https://www.jacq.org/detail.php?ID=442598

https://www.jacq.org/detail.php?ID=442599

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.cher0200025

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.je00021608

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.cher0200024

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Almost all databases accessed on 06.06.2023, including CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4RH2B), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7276759), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/713262-1), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000462989) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Ranunculus-montanus) indicate R.szurulensis Lerchenf. ex Schur as a synonym for R.montanus Willd. However, Domin and Krajina (on some herbarium labels) indicated that R.szurulensis is a synonym for R.carpaticus. This requires further exploration, but at least in the sense of Domin and Krajina, R.szurulensis should be considered a partial synonym of R.carpaticus.

Ranunculus malinovskii

Elenevsky et Derv.-Sok., Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 23: 59 (1986)

94E52158-73E9-54E2-B43C-FBD9F829D7E3

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4RGWJ

https://www.gbif.org/species/3922948

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:931315-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000462988

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/931315-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c8c99844-6aae-47fe-9652-31b79a864157

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Ranunculus-malinovskii

https://www.jacq.org/detail.php?ID=388543

https://www.jacq.org/detail.php?ID=422905

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.lw00122218

https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.lw00122216

  • = Ranunculuskladnii auct. fl. ucrain. carpat., non Schur *

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Carpathian endemic.

Notes

Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c8c99844-6aae-47fe-9652-31b79a864157, accessed on 06.06.2023) considers R.malinovskii as a synonym for R.acris L. Indeed, R.malinovskii and R.acris are morphologically similar, but R.malinovskii differs by smaller habitus, developed rhizome, weak pubescence of the leaves and stem and longer beak of the fruits (Visjulina 1953, Jelenevsky and Derviz-Sokolova 1986, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015).

Some plants from the higher altitudes in the Ukrainian Carpathians were identified as R.kladnii Shur. CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4RHQG, accessed on 06.06.2023), POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/713807-1), WFO (https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000462207, accessed on 06.06.2023), Euro+Med (https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/61b4424b-1bc9-4ee8-8cda-c5b9d6f5f7d8, accessed on 06.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Ranunculus-serbicus, accessed on 07.06.2023) synonymise R.kladnii with R.serbicus Vis. GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7277719, accessed on 06.06.2023), instead, considers R.kladnii to be a synonym for Ranunculusacrissubsp.acris. However, Jelenevsky and Derviz-Sokolova (1986) pointed out that the mentioned plants from higher altitudes differ from those described by Schur as R.kladnii. Jelenevsky and Derviz-Sokolova (1986) also found these plants to be different from R.acris and R.serbicus and, as a result, proposed a new name – R.malinovskii. Hence, all specimens from the Ukrainian Carpathians, identified as R.kladnii, appeared to be R.malinovskii (Tzvelev 2001, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015).

Saxifragales

202889E4-4671-5C8F-BB93-C326128FF074

Crassulaceae

64669CA4-08E2-5A64-A776-4CBEAF69128E

Sempervivum carpathicum carpathicum

Wettst. ex Prodan, Fl. Rep. Pop. Rom. 1: 530 (1923)

6B58DE3E-8092-5124-AE20-5884EEE435AD

https://www.gbif.org/species/8594037

https://www.gbif.org/species/7334507

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:20007689-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000437104

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77225188-1

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sempervivum_carpathicum_subsp._carpathicum

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/dc0af6e4-2449-4717-a20f-c69eba919385

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Sempervivum-montanum

https://wu.jacq.org/WU0034206

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian endemic.

Notes

The Red Book of Ukraine lists this species as S.montanum s.l. (Kobiv 2009, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021).

There are two subspecies within S.carpathicumWettst. ex Prodan –subsp.carpathicumandsubsp.heterophyllum (Hazsl.) Letz (occurs in Slovakia – Letz 2002). However, S.carpathicum is sometimes (e.g. in CoL – https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5L5BR, accessed on 06.06.2023) considered as a subspecies of S.montanum L. Sempervivummontanum, in general, has a wider distribution range and three (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/276551-1, accessed on 06.06.2023) to five (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Sempervivum-montanum, accessed on 07.06.2023) delimited subspecies (i.e. subsp. montanum, subsp. burnatii Wettst. ex Hayek, subsp. subsp. carpaticum Wettst. ex Hayek, subsp. rex Niederle and subsp. stiriacum (Wettst. ex Hayek) Hayek). Nevertheless, even in such a case, only S.montanumsubsp.carpaticum occurs in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015). Worldplants also mentions the presence of S.montanumsubsp.montanum for Ukraine, but no recent reports confirm this. Previous reports of S.montanumsubsp.montanum from Ukraine probably result from some mistaken taxonomic interpretation (Letz and Marhold 1998) of lowland plants of S.monatnum that also occur in the flora of Poland and Slovakia (Pawłowski 1956, Zahradníková 1985, Dostál 1989, Jalas 1999). Moreover, GBIF (ttps://www.gbif.org/species/7771274, https://www.gbif.org/species/8674343, accessed on 06.06.2023) synonymises S.heterophyllum Haszl. (≡ S.carpathicumsubsp.heterophyllum (Hazsl.) Letz) with S.carpathicumsubsp.carpathicum, which is not entirely correct. Only a part of S.carpathicumsubsp.heterophyllum (i.e. in the sense of Jávorka) can be treated as a synonym for S.carpathicumsubsp.carpathicum (Letz 2002).

Sempervivum globiferum preissianum

(Domin) M.Werner, Avonia 28(4): 191 (2011)

61E9B099-B715-5FC7-94F2-5DC810976D47

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5L5BC

https://www.gbif.org/species/7943221

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77110762-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001361905

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/77110762-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/13361222-617f-42b0-b280-edd556d997eb

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Sempervivum-globiferum

Conservation status

In Ukraine – NT (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

Pancarpathian subendemic.

Notes

Jovibarba Opiz. is often synonymised with Sempervivum L., but is sometimes considered an independent genus (Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015, Kliment et al. 2016, Mirek et al. 2020). In Ukraine, this genus is traditionally recognised as Jovibarba. Here, two geographically well-separated Jovibarba species occur – lowland J.sobolifera Opiz and high-mountainous J.preissiana (Domin) Omelczuk et Chopik. Both species are rare and listed in the Red Book of Ukraine (Andriyenko et al. 2009, Chorney 2009b, MEPNR of Ukraine 2021). In addition, J.heuffelii (Schott) Á.Löve & D.Löve is sometimes mistakenly mentioned for the Ukrainian Carpathians – this species occurs in Romania, but was never discovered in the Ukrainian Carpathians (Bialt 2001, Chopyk and Fedoronchuk 2015).

CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5L5BC, accessed on 07.06.2023), GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/species/7943221, accessed on 06.06.2023) and Worldplants (https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Sempervivum-globiferum, accessed on 07.06.2023), amongst synonyms of S.globiferumsubsp.preissianum, mentioned J.hirtasubsp.preissiana (Domin) Holub, which is, perhaps, a technical mistake. Holub (1998) did not apply such a combination, but instead used a combination J.globiferasubsp.preissiana (Domin) Holub. It is also interesting that Omelczuk-Mjakushko and Chopik are often mentioned as the authors of J.preissiana. This is not a principal mistake, but a result of a complicated publication case. Omelczuk-Mjakushko and Chopik (1975) are, indeed, the authors of the paper where the species is published. However, in the species protologue, near the new name on page 1184, they provided the maiden name of the first author (i.e. Omelczuk). Therefore, the proper authority of this species should be provided as Omelczuk & Chopik.

Saxifragaceae

8482FBB5-5D7A-585F-8119-5697806DD2AE

Chrysosplenium alpinum

Schur, Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 3(6): 86 (1852) et Verh. Mitth. Siebenbürg. Vereins Naturwiss. Hermannstadt 10: 133 (1859)

C861F363-CB49-5CF2-AFB8-DFCFA4D91B15

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5YTN5

https://www.gbif.org/species/5567560

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:790542-1

http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000603880

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/790542-1

https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/4cb54abb-d957-4541-8621-b7cc55069df5

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list?name=Chrysosplenium-alpinum

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42660#page/536

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42663#page/377

https://w.jacq.org/W0046043

https://w.jacq.org/W0046044

https://w.jacq.org/W0046045

https://w.jacq.org/W0046046

https://w.jacq.org/W18890086003

Conservation status

In Ukraine – LC (Onyshchenko et al. 2022).

Distribution

SE Capathian endemic.

Notes

Chrysospleniumalpinum and C.oppositifolium L. are two closely-related species that are sometimes synonymised (e.g. Maximowicz (1877), Răvăruţ (1956)).

Chrysospleniumalpinum plants are glabrous with entire or almost entire leaves (occur in Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians), while C.oppositifolium plants are pubescent at least in their base and have distinctly dentate leaves (occurring in western and central Europe, but not in Romania or Ukraine – Hrouda and Šourková (1992)). The affinity of these two species resulted in their misinterpretation and inevitable confusion. For example, GBIF provides C.glaciale Fuss (https://www.gbif.org/species/5567435, accessed on 06.06.2023) amongst the synonyms of C.oppositifolium (https://www.gbif.org/species/7526486, accessed on 06.06.2023). Perhaps, this synonymy resulted from Maximowicz’s (1877) observations. Similarly, GBIF provides C.rosulare Schott ex Maxim. (https://www.gbif.org/species/8560914, https://www.gbif.org/species/5567837, accessed on 06.06.2023) amongst synonyms to C.oppositifolium. This is because Maximowicz (1877), on page 345, indicated that C.rosulare, C.alpinum and C.glaciale, are synonyms for C.oppositifolium. Maximowicz (1877) noted that Transylvanian plants slightly differ, but concluded that this difference is taxonomically unimportant. In the original protologue of C.glaciale, Fuss (1866), on page 247, indeed provided C.oppositifolium as a synonym for C.glaciale, but he considered C.oppositifolium in the sense of Baumgarten, not in the original sense of Linnaeus. In turn, Baumgarten (1816a) on page 338, mentioned glabrous plants with slightly dentate leaves from Romania (i.e. C.alpinum, not C.oppositifolium). Hence, after analysis of the original protologues, it looks like both species, C.glaciale and C.rosulare, should be interpreted as synonyms of C.alpinum.

Analysis

Experience in working with taxonomy-related databases

The work on the current checklist has been a part of the inventory of endemics distributed in the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Novikoff and Hurdu 2015, Novikov and Sup-Novikova 2022a). During the inventory, creating a working list of taxa and their most frequently applied synonyms was necessary because herbarium specimens could be stored under different names. Later, the initial list was updated following the recent taxonomy and extended with other synonyms, including rare ones from old publications. It was found that different taxonomic databases (e.g. Worldplants, Euro+Med and POWO) have different visions of the structure and status of certain taxa, sometimes providing controversial data. Hence, the need to appeal to original protologues and monographic studies arose.

Considering that the data were prepared specially to be deposited in GBIF, the GBIF backbone taxonomy (Grosjean 2019) was the main focus. Moreover, each taxonomic record in GBIF has hyperlinks to principal taxonomic databases, including IPNI, Tropicos, POWO, WFO and CoL. The only exception are the databases Wikispecies and Worldplants – they are not directly crosslinked with GBIF; however, Worldplants is applied as a source of taxonomic data by CoL. Hence, GBIF seems to be the most comprehensive aggregator for gathering all taxonomic information. Moreover, GBIF uses for its backbone taxonomy checklist datasets published directly in GBIF through ChecklistBank. As a result, surprisingly, many rare taxonomic citations were present in GBIF and absent in other specialised taxonomic databases. Therefore, the GBIF backbone taxonomy has been chosen as a starting point for the exploration.

All databases were artificially subdivided on several types during the work regarding their primary focus listed below. It is worth noting that most databases combine the signs of different types.

1) Nomenclatural – the databases providing valuable nomenclatural information, including the taxonomic name, author(s) and details about the place of the protologue’s publication without clarification of relationships between listed taxa (i.e. IPNI)

2) Taxonomic – the databases providing more or less detailed information about taxa nomenclature, their synonymy and systematics (e.g. CoL, POWO, WFO, Wikispecies, Euro+Med, Worldplants). Such databases often offer extra data on the taxa distribution, type material, treatment etc.

3) Biogeographic – the databases primarily provide data on the taxa distribution, but also gather other information, including synonymy and systematics (i.e. GBIF).

4) Virtual herbaria – the databases hosting images of the herbarium material, including the type material and related data (e.g. JACQ and JSTOR Global Plants).

5) Publication repositories – the databases containing scanned publications with protologues and taxonomic treatments (e.g. Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), Biodiversity Literature Repository (BLR), Plazi, GBIF). With virtual herbaria, such databases are beneficial during the nomenclatural work because they provide access to principal taxonomic data.

The taxonomic databases were used to construct an initial working checklist and clarify the systematics of investigated taxa. Later, nomenclatural and biogeographic databases, as well as virtual herbaria and publication repositories, were used to test and develop the constructed checklist.

Despite numerous taxonomic-related databases, none of them is exceptional and exhaustive. Below are provided some pros and cons of the databases that were mostly used during the work on the current checklist.

1) CoL

Pros: CoL focuses on constructing a standardised and comprehensive checklist of the entire biota and is useful for global exploration. It provides persistent IDs for the valid names, information about authors and publication of the taxa. CoL predominantly uses Worldplants as a source for taxa validation and systematics. There is also minor information on the distribution of the listed taxa and their vernacular names. CoL is curated by a large number of specilaists in the taxonomy of the particular organism group.

Cons: CoL does not provide persistent IDs for synonyms and has no separate databases containing details about the authors and standard publications. It provides only simplified synonymy without clarification on whether it is a homotypic or heterotypic synonym. It has no maps visualising the distribution of taxa. It has no direct links to other databases. Additionally, the time lag of introducing new taxa or nomenclatural changes to CoL can be too long, sometimes a year or more.

2) GBIF

Pros: GBIF primarily aims to gather data on the distribution of living organisms and uses its own taxonomic backbone for systematics purposes. As a result, provided data are mostly related to reported occurrences. It allows us to build precise distribution maps and provides some other metrics facilities. GBIF gathers the data from different sources, which results in the presence of some unique poorly-known synonyms. It also contains other taxonomy-related data, including information about type materials, vernacular names, treatments etc. GBIF provides its own unique IDs for all taxa, including synonyms. Besides this, it provides a comprehensive list of cross-linked IDs applied by other databases.

Cons: Due to using different sources to construct the taxonomic backbone, there are some duplicated records (e.g. with some minor orthographic differences). GBIF has no separate databases about authors and publications where taxa were published, except from the taxonomic treatments extracted and provided by Plazi.

3) IPNI

Pros: IPNI is a fundamental nomenclatural database used as a starting point for validating taxon names, authors’ and publications’ abbreviations and searching for protologues. IPNI provides stable persistent identifiers (LSIDs) for all taxa, publications and authors.

Cons: IPNI provides links to POWO, WFO and BHL databases for certain taxa. However, it does not offer any interpretation of relationships between taxa. Therefore, detecting whether a taxon name is valid or a synonym is impossible. It also does not provide details on the principal chorology of taxa, which is sometimes useful for nomenclatural and taxonomic explorations. Besides this, IPNI has some ‘dead’ LSIDs listed in other databases, but suspended for some reason by IPNI. There are some duplicated records.

4) WFO

Pros: WFO is focused on constructing a taxonomic checklist and classification of the world flora, largely based on POWO. It provides its own unique IDs for all listed taxa, including synonyms. It is interlinked with IPNI and some other databases, including BOLD and GBIF.

Cons: It has a visually unfriendly interface with an overuse of bold fonts. Some IDs are integrated into plain text, making them tricky to find. Each taxon has two different pages (within the list and stand-alone taxonomic page – for example, https://wfoplantlist.org/plant-list/taxon/wfo-0000788843-2023-06 and http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000788843), which is confusing. There is not even basic information about the distribution of the listed taxa. There are some duplicated records.

5) POWO

Pros: POWO is one of the most used databases during the construction of the current checklist. It has a user-friendly interface and provides the most important information about listed taxa, including extended synonymy with the indication of homotypic and heterotypic synonyms, distribution details on the level of countries with the indication of native and introduced ranges, plant photos, links to digitised herbarium materials, list of related publications and other sources and links to some other databases (e.g. IPNI). POWO also applies LSIDs like IPNI.

Cons: The only disadvantage of POWO is the absence of independent databases dealing with authors and publications, which IPNI substitutes. There are some duplicated records.

6) Wikispecies

Pros: Some rare and unique names are represented that are not listed in other databases, which makes Wikispecies necessary to check. Classification of certain groups is often provided by narrow specialists. There are usually photos of listed plants. There are often provided vernacular names.

Cons: Wikispecies has numerous limitations due to its construction. In particular, the absence of persistent IDs, providing data as plain text, application of unusual abbreviations etc. Wikispecies is constructed mostly by enthusiasts, so many taxa are absent in this database.

7) Euro+Med

Pros: Some exclusive synonymy and systematics resulted from elaborating certain taxa by narrow specialists. Good maps with detailed information about data sources. Clustered synonymy with differentiation of homotypic and heterotypic synonyms. For some taxa, Euro+Med provides vernacular names in languages from the distribution range.

Cons: Some data, especially regarding the systematics of problematic taxa, are outdated. The database covers a limited geographical range, while some represented taxa have distribution extended out of this range. Unfriendly pop-up taxa list. Application of long URNs instead of short unique persistent IDs and absence of such IDs for synonyms.

8) Worldplants

Pros: Stand-alone database providing an alternative vision on plant systematics, which often differs from those proposed by POWO, Euro+Med and GBIF. This database offers detailed and precise nomenclature and systematics operatively updated following the newly-published data. It contains numerous rare synonyms from regional floras that are mostly absent in other databases. It also provides quite detailed information about taxa distribution in different countries.

Cons: The absence of persistent IDs and stable links makes it hard to cite certain taxon. The synonyms are listed as plain text without clarification of their type. Applied abbreviations for the authors and publications often differ from those used by IPNI and other databases. The old-fashion interface does not attract.

9) BHL

Pros: The principal repository of old printed materials related to biodiversity, providing a unique opportunity to work directly with protologues. BHL provides DOIs for some of the publications. It also offers persistent IDs for all content, allowing links to a certain page from the publication. It automatically searches and displays the taxa mentioned on the selected page. Allows us to download the content freely.

Cons: Slightly complicated interface with a somewhat unfriendly searching procedure.

10) JACQ

Pros: One of the virtual herbaria; extremely useful for studies related to the Carpathian Region. Provides free access to scanned herbarium vouchers (including the type material) with high resolution and to the data parsed from the herbarium labels. For some entries, JACQ provides persistent IDs.

Cons: Not all entries are supported by scans.

11) JSTOR Global Plants

Pros: Another virtual herbarium, which focuses mostly on gathering the images of type material and providing both scans and data parsed from the labels. It offers stable links similar to DOIs.

Cons: Paid access.

12) PLAZI TreatmentBank

Pros: Provides direct access to parsed taxonomic treatments and mentions of taxa in the publications and grants UUIDs for these records.

Cons: Undeveloped interface. Complicated search procedure. Absence of the treatments for most of the analysed taxa.

Issues revealed during the work with databases

Besides the inconsistency in nomenclatural and taxonomic visions, when different taxa are considered to be independent or merged as synonyms (e.g. Aconitummoldavicum Hacq. and A.lycoctonum L.) or considered at different taxonomic ranks (e.g. Koeleriatranssilvanica Schur versus Koeleriamacranthasubsp.transsilvanica (Schur) A.Nyár.) by different data providers, several other issues were detected and resolved viz.:

1) Some taxa have two or more duplicated checklist records. For example, in GBIF, there are duplicated checklist records for Campanulamicrophylla Kit. ex Schult. (https://www.gbif.org/species/5411213 and https://www.gbif.org/species/7654241, accessed on 06.06.2023), Thesiumserratum Kit. ex Schult. (https://www.gbif.org/species/7614045 and https://www.gbif.org/species/7390879, accessed on 06.06.2023), Alsinepauciflora Kit. ex Nyman (https://www.gbif.org/species/8455786 and https://www.gbif.org/species/3807842, accessed on 06.06.2023) and many other species. Such issues, in most cases, including other databases, result from data aggregation from different sources that can provide data of different quality. Providing the same data, but containing even minor differences (mistakes or technical errors) or incomplete data can result in their automatic interpretation as independent records. Therefore, it is necessary to revise and catch such duplicated records manually.

2) Some of the records in IPNI (e.g. Centaureamollisf.maramarosiensis Jáv. – https://www.ipni.org/n/50909566-1, accessed on 23.07.2023) are suppressed for unclear reasons, while the assigned LSIDs are still in use in other databases (e.g. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/50909566-1, accessed on 23.07.2023) and provided nomenclatural information is correct.

3) Some taxonomic records provide incomplete and/or incorrect authorship for taxa. For example, all databases provide for Jovibarbapreissiana authorship (Domin) Omel'chuk-Myakushko & Chopik (https://www.gbif.org/species/9627483, accessed on 06.06.2023), but it should be (Domin) Omelczuk & Chopik (this is clearly indicated in the original protologue of the species and also recognised in the IPNI authors database (https://www.ipni.org/n/274240-1, accessed on 06.06.2023), which bases its abbreviations on the respective TDWG). For Koeleriatenuipes and its homonyms, all databases display Domin as an author of the basionym. However, Ujhelyi (1965) 191) pointed out that it is Schur and provided the correct name – Koeleriatenuipes (Schur) Ujhelyi. Another example, GBIF provides the record for Lathyrustranssilvanicus Fritsch (https://www.gbif.org/species/8329194, accessed on 06.06.2023), while it should be Lathyrustranssilvanicus (Spreng.) Fritsch. Some similar authorship issues were also revealed and fixed while elaborating on the current checklist.

4) Some taxonomic records provide missing, incomplete and/or incorrect protologue data. For example, in GBIF, pages are not indicated for protologues of Campanulanapuligeraf.longisepala (Nyár.) Morariu (https://www.gbif.org/species/8397712, accessed on 06.06.2023), Campanularotundifoliavar.grandiflora J.A.Knapp (https://www.gbif.org/species/7764236, accessed on 06.06.2023) and many other taxa. Protologue data are missing for Minuartiaoxypetala (Woł.) Kulczyński (https://www.gbif.org/species/7504529, accessed on 06.06.2023), Minuartiavernasubsp.oxypetala (Woł.) G.Halliday (https://www.gbif.org/species/8333640, accessed on 06.06.2023), Genistaoligosperma (Andrae) Simonk. (https://www.gbif.org/species/5347633, accessed on 06.06.2023) and many other taxa. For some taxa, GBIF provides empty taxonomic records with missing protologue data, for example, for Campanulanapuligeravar.alpiniformis Nyár. ex Morariu (https://www.gbif.org/species/8554545, accessed on 06.06.2023).

5) Occasionally taxonomic records provide not the first published protologue. For example, the name Dianthusmicrochelus B.S.Williams (https://www.gbif.org/species/3810687, https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/153597-1, accessed on 06.06.2023) has been first published in 1890 (not in 1891, as indicated in World Plants, GBIF and POWO). Similarly, the name Trifoliumsarosiense Hazsl. (https://www.gbif.org/species/5358815, https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/523672-1, accessed on 06.06.2023) has been first published in 1864 (not in 1867). Such dating mistakes occur mostly due to the inaccessibility of many old publications, especially periodicals that were published locally. In some cases, such mistakes had resulted from publication tardiness – before many journals published their volumes in the consequent year (e.g. the last volume from 1912 could be published in 1913). Sporadically, such dating mistakes result due to the use of re-prints instead of original publications. Fortunately, currently, BHL and other virtual libraries provide access to more and more rarities allowing the detection of such dating issues and discovering the first publications with the original protologues of many taxa.

6) For many taxa, all elaborated databases provide an incomplete list of synonyms. Some taxa, especially those published in old local periodicals and monographs, are missing from the databases. In particular, there are often missing taxa published by Zapałowicz (1906b) in the “Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus” – for example, many infraspecific taxa of Alsinezarencznyi Zapał. Additionally, there are some missing taxa published in “Flora Reipublicae Populare România” (Săvulescu 1952) – for example, infraspecific taxa of Aconitumcallibotryon Rchb. GBIF has no taxonomic record about the name Melandriumzawadzkii (Herbich) A. Braun, which is often applied as an alternative name for Silenezawadzkii Herbich (https://www.gbif.org/species/5587094, accessed on 06.06.2023) in the Ukrainian herbaria. World Plants, CoL and GBIF completely miss the data on Scabiosalucidasubsp.barbata Nyár., its homonyms and infraspecific derivates.

7) In some cases, the taxonomic rank is indicated incorrectly. For example, GBIF provides a taxonomic record for Campanulapolymorphaf.reflectans Hruby (https://www.gbif.org/species/5410039, accessed on 06.06.2023). However, this taxon has been described as a subform and, hence, the correct citation should be Campanulapolymorphasubf.reflectans Hruby (initially described as Campanulapolymorphavar.typicaf.lepidasubf.reflectans – Hruby (1930)). Similarly, GBIF mistakenly indicates the rank of subspecies for Aconitumkoelleanumvar.firmum (Rchb.) Rchb. (https://www.gbif.org/species/12133197, accessed on 06.06.2023), Aconitumpaniculatumf.latilobum Zapał. (https://www.gbif.org/species/12053893, accessed on 06.06.2023) and many other Aconitum L. taxa.

8) The lack of synonymic interlinkage for existing taxonomic records has been observed in some cases. For example, in GBIF, there is a taxonomic record for Campanulastenophylla (Schur) Witasek (https://www.gbif.org/species/7633288, accessed on 06.06.2023), but it is not linked to the record of the valid taxon C.tatraesubsp.tatrae (https://www.gbif.org/species/7222073, accessed on 06.06.2023). Similarly, the taxonomic record of Trifoliumsarosiense Hazsl. ex Neilr. (https://www.gbif.org/species/8013811, accessed on 06.06.2023) is not linked to the parental record of Trifoliumsarosiense Hazsl. (https://www.gbif.org/species/5358815, accessed on 06.06.2023).

9) Many databases omit orthographical variants that often appear in taxonomy. For example, GBIF provides the only variant Minuartiazarecznyi (Zapał.) Klokov (https://www.gbif.org/species/7267413, accessed on 06.06.2023), while it is often written as Minuartiazarencznii. In this checklist, such orthographical variants are considered.

10) The uneven approach in building the nomenclatural backbone. Amongst all databases, only IPNI has an ultimative structure comprising three main nomenclatural elements (i.e. the name of the taxon, the author(s) of the taxon and the publishing source) as independent datasets and providing unique urns to each of these elements. For example, Campanulacarpatica has a LSID names:140068-1 (https://www.ipni.org/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:140068-1, accessed on 06.06.2023), its author, Nicolaus Jacquin, has its own LSID – authors:12576-1 (https://www.ipni.org/urn:lsid:ipni.org:authors:12576-1, accessed on 06.06.2023) and the publication with the protologue, Hortus Botanicus Vindobonensis, has its own LSID – publications:3465-2 (https://www.ipni.org/urn:lsid:ipni.org:publications:3465-2, accessed on 06.06.2023). This is extremely useful because, sometimes, it is not clear where the taxon was published. By browsing other taxa of the same author, it is possible to locate the protologue. Such an operation is impossible without independent datasets with taxa names, authors and publications. Moreover, besides the urns, IPNI proposes standard abbreviations for the authors and publications, which makes it more accessible to routine work with nomenclatural data. Unfortunately, all other databases provide unique ids (if any) only for the taxa and do not allow navigating amongst the authors and their publications, which limits their application for nomenclatural work.

11) The lack or excessive length of unique IDs for listed taxa. Most of the elaborated databases provide unique IDs for the hosted taxa. In particular, POWO applies IPNI's LSIDs (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77221836-1, accessed on 06.06.2023). While CoL, GBIF and WFO have their own short persistent IDs (e.g. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/3KXBD or https://list.worldfloraonline.org/wfo-0000745368, accessed on 06.06.2023), Euro+Med also applies persistent IDs in the form of UUIDs (e.g. https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/616ef7e8-6c89-4d43-8f5b-b52b0bb164b0, accessed on 06.06.2023). The Wikispecies simply applies URLs (e.g. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Heracleum_carpaticum, accessed on 06.06.2023). Regardless of the ID type, most databases provide IDs both to valid taxa and their synonyms and build independent pages for them, allowing cross-linkage and precise citation of each of the taxa (valid or synonymic). Unfortunately, Euro+Med, Worldplants and Wikispecies have limitations in operation with synonyms. In Euro+Med, synonyms also have unique ids, but they have no independent pages and, therefore, it is not possible to dirrectly navigate to them – they are only highlighted in the list of synonyms and generated links are extremely long (e.g. https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/43877abc-2ef9-4cbf-afaf-d18e92f3cf63/synonymy?highlite=676063a0-c78d-433b-9c76-efdfb15a2d15&acceptedFor=676063a0-c78d-433b-9c76-efdfb15a2d15#676063a0-c78d-433b-9c76-efdfb15a2d15, accessed on 06.06.2023). In Worldplants and Wikispecies, only valid taxa have their own URLs and synonyms are simply listed as a plain text (e.g. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scilla_kladnii, accessed on 06.06.2023). Moreover, in Worldplants, even valid species are bulked together within the same page of the genus, while the ids are temporarily generated, which makes it impossible to provide a permanent link to certain species.

General recommendations to taxonomy-related databases

Considering my experience in working with and combining data from different taxonomic-related databases, I can outline a few following recommendations for these databases, which, in general, correspond to FAIR principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016, GO FAIR 2023). These recommendations aim to increase the speed and quality of automatic or semi-automatic data processing and data reusability by individual researchers.

1) Use persistent and resolvable persistent IDs for all taxon names, including synonymic ones. Applying unique persistent IDs assures the ability to easily recombine and interlink the names following new taxonomic visions and particular nomenclatural purposes.

2) Assign unique persistent IDs to all elements of the taxon name, including name, authority and publication source. This allows us to navigate between different elements of the taxon name quickly, find the original publications and interlink them, providing surplus analysis on the value of certain publication sources.

3) Use of the standard abbreviations for the taxon authors and at least principal publications sources. Since the taxon authors and nomenclatural citations are frequently abbreviated in different ways, sometimes it is extremely hard to findi the original publication for further nomenclatural exploration. This is especially evident in work with rare old publications and journal series that have changed their name several times. Together with providing unique ids, the application of standardised abbreviations allows us to correctly navigate amongst the authors and publications.

4) Providing at least basic data on the distribution of specified taxon helps a lot in preliminary decisions during the initial explorations. The databases with maps of the distribution or with the list of countries where the taxon occurs are very helpful in building the initial lists for further nomenclatural and taxonomic investigations because they allow us to exclude the taxa that are out of the area of interest and, at the same time, locate some obviously problematic taxa requiring special attention.

5) Providing the links to the original publications with protologues is crucial because it speeds the taxonomic revision process and assures correct and unambiguous elaboration of the original material by different investigators. Providing links to other related databases could be also helpful. However, different databases develop with different intensities and support, so extensive cross-linkage can result in the appearance of dead links that should be additionally maintained.

6) Providing the history or the log of the changes occurring with taxa names would help to understand which issue was detected and for which reason the name has been suspended or modified. At the moment, such an option is partly realised only in the WFO database.

7) Providing the bibliographic reference to the works containing taxa descriptions (with an option to download it in RIS/ BibTex format or at least displayed as plain text following one of the citation styles like APA) would be helpful in two ways – (a) practical, since the researchers will not waste their time on searching and formatting proper citations in case of need to provide in-text references with analysis of the original publications; (b) respective, since providing the full citations for taxa names (all or at least recently published) will increase the citation rate of nomenclatural and taxonomic works that are generally significantly unacknowledged (Valdecasas et al. 2000, Haszprunar 2011, Pyke 2014). Unfortunately, at the moment such an option is not realised in any of the used databases.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material 1

An alphabetic index of endemic species and infraspecific taxa of vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians

Andriy Novikov

Data type

Checklist

Brief description

This is an alphabetically ordered checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians.

File: oo_866643.docx

bdj-11-e103921-s001.docx (76.4KB, docx)
Supplementary material 2

Clustered synonymic checklist of endemic species and infraspecific of vascular plants taxa distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians

Andriy Novikov

Data type

Checklist

Brief description

This is a hierarchically ordered (with clustered homotypic synonyms) checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians.

File: oo_866642.docx

bdj-11-e103921-s002.docx (67.9KB, docx)
Supplementary material 3

Revealed accessions to molecular data on the investigated species

Andriy Novikov

Data type

molecular data

Brief description

This table contains all accessions to molecular data regarding investigated species and revealed using the ENA and BOLD facilities.

File: oo_873626.xlsx

bdj-11-e103921-s003.xlsx (478.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr. Patrik Mráz and librarian Vit Mrkvicka from Charles University, Dr. Mihai Puşcaş from the Botanical Garden of the Babeş-Bolyai University, Łukasz Piechnik from the Institute of Botany PAN and Krzysztof Kapala from the Botanical Garden of the Jagiellonian University, for help with finding the rare literature. I also thank everyone who helped me and supported this my work for the last several years. The publication of this work has been supported by the Biodiversity Community Integrated Knowledge Library (BiCIKL) project, which receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Action under grant agreement No 101007492.

References

  1. republiky Akademie věd České. Digitální knihovna AV ČR. https://www.lib.cas.cz/digitalni-knihovna/ [2023-02-02T00:00:00+02:00]. https://www.lib.cas.cz/digitalni-knihovna/
  2. Al-Shehbaz I. A. A synopsis of the genus Noccaea (Coluteocarpeae, Brassicaceae) Harvard Papers in Botany. 2014;19(1):25–51. doi: 10.3100/hpib.v19iss1.2014.n3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anchev M. E., Apostolova I., Assyov B., Bancheva S. T., Denchev C. M., Dimitrov D., Dimitrova D. I., Evstatieva L., Genova E., Georgiev V., Goranova V., Gussev C., Ignatova P., Ivanova D., Meshinev T., Peev D., Petrova A., Petrova A. S., Sopotlieva D., Stanev S., Stoeva M. P., Stoyanov S., Tashev A. N., Tosheva A., Tsoneva S., Tzonev R., Vitkova A., Vladimirov V. Red List of Bulgarian vascular plants. Phytologia Balcanica. 2009;15(1):63–94. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrae C. J. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Flora des südlichen Banates, der banater Militärgrenze und Siebenbürgens. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/104887 Botanische Zeitung. 1855;13:305–320. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andriyenko T. L., Konischuk V. V., Panchenko S. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Boridnyk parostkoviy. Jovibarba sobolifera (Sims.) Opiz.414. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ascherson P. Bemerkungen über einige Pflanzen des Kitaibel’schen Herbariums. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/239512 Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien. 1867;12:565–590. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ascherson P. F.A., Graebner P. Synopsis der mitteleuropäischen Flora (1896-1910) Bds. 1-6. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann; 1896. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ascherson P. F.A., Graebner P. Synopsis der mitteleuropäischen Flora. Bd. 2, Abt. 1. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann; 1898. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Băcilă I., Şuteu D., Coste A., Filipaş L., Ursu T., Stoica I. A., Hurdu B. -I., Puşcaş M., Coldea G. The Poagranitica group in the Carpathian Mountains: some molecular insights. Contributii Botanice. 2010;45:7–12. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bánki O., Roskov Y., Döring M., Ower G., Vandepitte L., Hobern D., Remsen D., Schalk P., DeWalt R. E., Keping M., Miller J., Orrell T., Aalbu R., Abbott J., Adlard R., Adriaenssens E. M., Aedo C., Aescht E., Akkari N. Catalogue of Life Checklist. Version 2023-05-15. [2023-05-31T00:00:00+03:00]. [DOI]
  11. Barberá Patricia, Romero-Zarco Carlos, Aedo Carlos. Taxonomic Revision of Trisetumsect.Trisetum (Poaceae: Pooideae: Aveninae) from Eurasia and North Africa. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 2018;103(3):350–392. doi: 10.3417/2018067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Baumann H., Lorenz R. (2037) Proposal to conserve the name Gymnadeniarubra (Nigritella rubra) against Orchisminiata (Orchidaceae) Taxon. 2011;60(6):1775–1776. doi: 10.1002/tax.606027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Baumgarten J. C.G. Enumeratio stirpium magno Transsilvaniae principatui præprimis indigenarum. Vol. 1. Vindebonae; 1816. [Google Scholar]
  14. Baumgarten J. C.G. Enumeratio stirpium magno Transsilvaniae principatui præprimis indigenarum (1816-1846) 1-4. Vindebonae; 1816. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bednarska I. Genus Festuca L. (Poaceae) in the flora of the western regions of Ukraine. Doctoral dissertation. Institute of the Ecology of the Carpathians; Lviv: 2007. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bednarska I., Kagalo O. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Kostrytsia Porciusa. Festuca porcii Hack.228. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  17. Beldie A. In: Flora Republicii Populare Române. Săvulescu T., editor. Vol. 1. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române; 1952. Fam. 14. Salicaceae Lindl.267-322 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bernátová Dana, Májovský Jozef, Kliment Ján, Topercer Ján. Taxonomy and distribution of Poacarpatica in the Western Carpathians. Biologia. 2006;61(4):387–392. doi: 10.2478/s11756-006-0069-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. BHL The Biodiversity Heritage Library. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ [2022-12-14T00:00:00+02:00]. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/
  20. Bialt V. V. In: Flora of Eastern Europe. Tzvelev N. N., editor. Vol. 10. Mir i Semiya; Moscow: 2001. Sem. 86. Crassulaceae J. St.-Hill. – Tolstiankoviye.250-285. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bilz M. Campanulaserrata (errata version published in 2020) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2011;2011:e.T161866A176601594. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2011-1.RLTS.T161866A176601594.en. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bilz M. Poagraniticassp.disparilis (Europe assessment) https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/162408/5587454 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2011;2011:e.T162408A5587454. [Google Scholar]
  23. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444 Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:427–428. [Google Scholar]
  24. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:397–400. doi: 10.1007/BF01662880. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:361–364. doi: 10.1007/BF01638400. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:257–259. doi: 10.1007/BF01638737. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:220–223. doi: 10.1007/BF01638359. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:175–176. doi: 10.1007/BF01673789. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:144–147. doi: 10.1007/BF01701574. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:116–119. doi: 10.1007/BF01665440. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35444. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1883;33:37–40. doi: 10.1007/BF01641992. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91413. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1884;34:427–428. doi: 10.1007/BF01643170. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91413. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1884;34:359–360, 427. doi: 10.1007/BF01643354. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91413. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1884;34:249–251. doi: 10.1007/BF01641853. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91413. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1884;34:212–216. doi: 10.1007/BF01638379. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91413. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1884;34:120–122. doi: 10.1007/BF01665933. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Błocki B. Ein Beitrag zur Flora Galiziens und der Bukowina. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91413. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1884;34:51–55. doi: 10.1007/BF01665613. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Boissier E. Flora orientalis: sive enumeratio plantarum in oriente a graecia et aegypto ad indiae fines hucusque observatarum. Vol. 4. Appud H. Georg, Bibliopolam; Ludguni: 1879. [Google Scholar]
  39. Boissier P. E. Voyage botanique dans le midi de l'Espagne pendant l'année. Vol. 2. Gide et Cie; Paris: 1837. [Google Scholar]
  40. Boissier P. E. Diagnoses plantarum orientalium novarum. Vol. 1, Sisteus fasciculos 1–7. Vol. 1. Appud B. Herrmann; Lipsiae: 1843. [Google Scholar]
  41. BOLD Barcode of Life Data System. v4. https://boldsystems.org/index.php. [2023-06-21T00:00:00+03:00]. https://boldsystems.org/index.php
  42. Borbás V. A Lembergi egyetem herbáriumában lév Schur-féle erdélyi szegfüvekrl. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/97426 Természetrajzi Füzetek kiadja a Magyar nemzeti Muzeum. 1889;12:40–53. [Google Scholar]
  43. Borbás V. A Tátra flórájáról. Természettudományi Közlöny. 1902;34(394):369–390. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bordzilovskiy Y. I. Flora of UkrSSR (1938-1940) 1 & 2. Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR; Kyiv: 1938. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  45. Braun A. Beitrag zur Feststellung natürlicher Gattungen unter den Sileneen. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/940#page/366/ Flora oder Allgemeine Botanische Zeitung. 1843;26:350–263. [Google Scholar]
  46. Brügger C. G. Zur flora tirols. Wagner’schen Buchdr; 1860. [Google Scholar]
  47. Brügger C. G. In: Naturgeschichtliche Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Umgebungen von Chur. Graubünden Naturforschende Gesellschaft., editor. Druck von Gebrüder Casanova; 1874. Flora Curiensis: Systematische übersicht der in der Umgebung von Chur Wildwachsenden und Häufig Cultivirten Gefässplanzen.47-104. [Google Scholar]
  48. Brügger C. G. Mittheilungen über neue und kritische formen der bündner- und nachbar-floren. Selbstverlag des Verfassers; 1886. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Brügger C. G. Mittheilungen über neue und kritische formen der bündner- und nachbar-floren. https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=ngg-002%3A1884%3A29%3A%3A244 Jahresbericht Der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Graubündens. 1886;29:46–178. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chopyk V., Fedoronchuk M. Flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Terno-graph; Ternopil: 2015. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chopyk V. I. High-mountain flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Naukova dumka; Kyiv: 1976. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chorney I. I. Toward the question of endemism of the flora of Ukrainian Carpathians. Protection Affairs in Ukraine. 2006;12(2):7–16. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chorney I. I. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Smilkokvitka Zavadskoho (Smilka Zavadskoho). Silenanthe zawadskii (Herbich) Griseb. et Schenk (Elisanthe zawadskii (Herbich) Klokov; Silene zawadskii Herbich.400. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  54. Chorney I. I. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Boridnyk sherstystovolosystiy. Jovibarba hirta (L.) Opiz (J. preissiana (Domin) Omelczuk et Czopik, J. hirta (L.) Opiz subsp. preissiana (Domin) Soó, Sempervivum hirtum L.)413. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chorney I. I. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Chornianka karpatska (nigritelia karpatska). Nigritella carpatica (Zapał.) Teppner, Klein et Zagulski (Gymnadenia carpatica (Zapał.) Teppner et E. Klein, Nigritella angustifolia Rich. var. carpatica Zapał., N. nigra auct. non (L.) Rchb. f.)198. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  56. Chorney I. I., Danylyk I. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Sossureya Porciusa. Saussurea porcii Degen.335. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  57. Chorney I. I., Fedoronchuk M. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Minuartsia ridkokvitkova. Minuartia pauciflora (Kit. ex Kanitz) Dvořaková (M. gerardii auct. non (Willd.) Hayek; M. verna auct. non (L.) Hierr; M. zarecznyi (Zapał.) Klokov)397. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  58. Chorney I. I., Korotchenko I. A., Shevera M. V. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Tonkonig Remana. Poa rehmannii (Asch. et Graebn.) Woł. (P. nemoralis L. subsp. rehmannii Asch. et Graebn.)233. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  59. Chorney I. I. Critical revision of the taxa, mentioned as endemic for flora of Ukrainian Carpathians. Scientific Proceedings of Bukovina Society of Naturalists. 2011;1(1-2):23–59. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  60. Chrtek J., Jirásek V. Poadeylii sp. nova, eine neue Rispengrasart in den Karpaten. Feddes Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis. 1964;69:176–180. [Google Scholar]
  61. Chrtek J. Poznámky k druhu Scabiosalucida s. l. v Karpatech. Preslia. 1985;57:199–203. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chrtek J., Goliašová K. In: Flóra Slovenska. Bertová L., editor. IV/2. Veda; Bratislava: 1985. Scabiosa L. Hlaváč.178-190 [Google Scholar]
  63. Chrtek J., Pouzar Z. Further comments on the problem of Antennariacarpatica. Preslia. 1985;57:193–198. [Google Scholar]
  64. Chrtek J. Observations on Carpathian populations of Plantagoatrata. Journal of the National Museum (Prague), Natural History Series - Časopis Národního muzea. 2000;169(1-4):47–52. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ciocârlan V. Flora ilustrată a României. Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta. Editura Ceres; Bucuresți: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  66. Comănescu P., Štefănuţ S. Preliminary data about the chorology of the species Sesleriabielzii in Romania. https://ahbb.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/AHBB-37-53-65.pdf Acta Horti Botanici Bucurestiensis. 2010;37:51–62. [Google Scholar]
  67. Group Compositae Working. Global Compositae Database. https://www.compositae.org/gcd/ [2023-06-01T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.compositae.org/gcd/
  68. Czerepanov S. K. In: Flora of the European part of USSR. Tzvelev N. N., editor. Vol. 7. Nauka; 1994. Rod 110. Vasiliek – Centaurea L.260-288. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  69. Czerepanov S. K. Vascular plants of Russia and adjacent states (the former USSR) Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  70. Danciu V. M., Golban D. The herbarium of Simonkai L. in the collection of the Cris County Museum (Part II). Nymphaea. Folia Naturae Bihariae. 2009;36:37–166. [Google Scholar]
  71. Danihelka J., Chrtek J., Kaplan Z. Checklist of vascular plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia. 2012;84:647–811. [Google Scholar]
  72. Danylyk I. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Verba tupolysta. Salix retusa L. (S. kitaibeliana Willd.)587. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  73. Deyl M. Tři transsilvanské subspecie trav na Podkarpatské Rusi. Věda Přirodní. 1934;15:224–245. [Google Scholar]
  74. Deyl M. Plants, soil and climate of Pop Ivan. Synecological study from Carpathian Ukraine. Opera Botanica Čechica. 1940;(2):1–290.
  75. Deyl M. In: Flora Europaea. Tutin T. G., Heywood V. H., Burges N. A., Moore D. M., Valentine D. H., Walters S. M., editors. Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1980. Sesleria Scop.173-177 [Google Scholar]
  76. Didukh Y. P., editor. Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  77. Domin K. Plantarum Cechoslovakiae enumeratio: species vasculares indigenas et introductas exhibens. Vytiskla Státní Tiskárna v Praze; Prague: 1935. [Google Scholar]
  78. Dostál J. Nová Kvétena ČSSR. 1-2. Academia Press; Praha: 1989. [Google Scholar]
  79. Dremliuga N., Zyman S. Biomorphological analysis of species of the genus Campanula L. in the flora of Ukraine. Bilogical Systems. 2012;5(1):31–38. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  80. EMBL-EBI European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/home. [2023-06-21T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/home
  81. Essl Franz, Staudinger Markus, Stöhr Oliver, Schratt-Ehrendorfer Luise, Rabitsch Wolfgang, Niklfeld Harald. Distribution patterns, range size and niche breadth of Austrian endemic plants. Biological Conservation. 2009;142(11):2547–2558. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Library ETH. E-Periodica. https://www.e-periodica.ch/ [2023-01-18T00:00:00+02:00]. https://www.e-periodica.ch/
  83. Euro+Med Euro+Med PlantBase. https://europlusmed.org/ [2023-05-31T00:00:00+03:00]. https://europlusmed.org/
  84. Fassou Georgia, Korotkova Nadja, Nersesyan Anush, Koch Marcus A., Dimopoulos Panayotis, Borsch Thomas. Taxonomy of Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae) – overall phylogenetic relationships and assessment of species diversity based on a first comprehensive checklist of the genus. PhytoKeys. 2022;196:91–214. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.196.77940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Favre Adrien, Pringle James S., Heckenhauer Jacqueline, Kozuharova Ekaterina, Gao Qingbo, Lemmon Emily Moriarty, Lemmon Alan R., Sun Hang, Tkach Natalia, Gebauer Sebastian, Sun Shan‐Shan, Fu Peng‐Cheng. Phylogenetic relationships and sectional delineation within<i>Gentiana</i>(Gentianaceae) TAXON. 2020;69(6):1221–1238. doi: 10.1002/tax.12405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Fedoronchuk M. M., Chorney I. I. Genus Dianthus L. (Caryophyllaceae Juss.) of the flora of Ukraine: taxonomical and sozological analysis. Protection Affairs in Ukraine. 2005;11(2):9–18. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  87. Fedoronchuk M. M., Chorney I. I. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Minuartia gostropelustkova. Minuartia oxypetala (Woł.) Kulcz. (Alsine oxypetala Woł., Minuartia verna (L.) Hier subsp. oxypetala (Woł.) Halliday)398. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  88. Fedoronchuk M. M., Mosyakin S. L. The genus Minuartia s. l. (Caryophyllaceae) in the flora of Eastern Europe: an overview of nomenclatural changes in the light of new molecular phylogenetic data. Ukrainian Botanical Journal. 2016;73(2):134–143. doi: 10.15407/ukrbotj73.02.134. Ukrainian. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Fedorov A. Flora of the European part of USSR (1974-1987) 1-6. Nauka; 1974. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  90. Feráková V., editor. Flóra Slovenska. V/1–VI/4. Veda; Bratislava: 1993. [Google Scholar]
  91. Filipaş L., Puşcaş M., Ursu T., Stoica I. A., Coldea G. On the occurrence of the Poagranitica group in the Romanian Carpathians. Contributii Botanice. 2009;44:13–19. [Google Scholar]
  92. Fuss M. Flora transsilvaniae excursoria. Typis haeredum Georgii de Closius; 1866. [Google Scholar]
  93. Futák J., editor. Flóra Slovenska (1966-1982) I-III. Veda; Bratislava: 1966. [Google Scholar]
  94. GBIF The Global Biodiversity Information Facility. https://www.gbif.org/ [2023-06-01T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.gbif.org/
  95. Gergely I., Beldie A. In: Flora Republicii Socialiste România. Săvulescu T., editor. XII. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România; 1972. Genul 177. Sesleria Scop. [Google Scholar]
  96. Geslot A. Contribution a l'etude cytotaxinomique de Campanularecta Dul., C.scheuchzeri Vill. et C.ficarioides Tim.-Lagr. en Pyrenees Centrales et Orientales. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France. 1971;118(suppl. 2):271–298. doi: 10.1080/00378941.1971.10839000. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Ghişa E., Beldie A. In: Flora Republicii Socialiste România. Săvulescu T., editor. XII. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România; 1972. Genul 739. Poa L. [Google Scholar]
  98. FAIR GO. FAIR Principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ [2023-07-23T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/
  99. Google Google books. https://books.google.com/ [2023-02-12T00:00:00+02:00]. https://books.google.com/
  100. Greene E. L. Studies in the compositae - VII. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15254108#page/295 Pittonia. 1898;3(18):264–298. [Google Scholar]
  101. Greuter W. Compositae (pro parte majore) Greuter W., Raab-Straube E., editors. https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/599e0bdb-a2e8-49b9-9907-5398259c4f00 Compositae. Euro+Med Plantbase - the information resource for Euro-Mediterranean plant diversity. 2006
  102. Grosjean M. Six questions answered about the GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. https://data-blog.gbif.org/post/gbif-backbone-taxonomy/ [2023-06-05T00:00:00+03:00]. https://data-blog.gbif.org/post/gbif-backbone-taxonomy/
  103. Hand R., Thieme M., Mitarbeiter Florenliste von Deutschland (Gefäßpflanzen), begründet von Karl Peter Buttler, Version 13. https://www.kp-buttler.de/ [2023-05-31T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.kp-buttler.de/
  104. Harpke Dörte, Meng Shuchun, Rutten Twan, Kerndorff Helmut, Blattner Frank R. Phylogeny of Crocus (Iridaceae) based on one chloroplast and two nuclear loci: Ancient hybridization and chromosome number evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2013;66(3):617–627. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Hassler M. World Plants. Synonymic Checklist and Distribution of the World Flora. Version 15.4. https://www.worldplants.de/ [2023-06-01T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.worldplants.de/
  106. Haszprunar Gerhard. Species delimitations – not ‘only descriptive’. Organisms Diversity & Evolution. 2011;11(3):249–252. doi: 10.1007/s13127-011-0047-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Hayek A., Hegi G. Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Deutschland, Oesterreich und der Schweiz. Zum Gebrauche in den Schulen und zum Selbstunterricht. Bd. VI, H. 1. Lehmanns Verlag; 1908. [Google Scholar]
  108. Hayek August. Diagnosen neuer von J. Dörfler und H. Zerny in den Jahren 1916 und 1918 in Albanien gesammelter Pflanzenformen. Öesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1921;70:12–22. doi: 10.1007/bf01635690. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Heimerl A. Die Arten, Unterarten, Varietäten und Hybriden: Monographia sectionis "Ptarmica" AchilleaeGeneris.SectionPtarmica des Genus Achillea. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/31429 Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften / Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe. 1884;48:113–192. [Google Scholar]
  110. Herbich F. Flora der Bucovina. F. Volckmar; Leipzig: 1859. [Google Scholar]
  111. Hodálová I. Multivariate analysis of the Senecionemorensis group (Compositae) in the Carpathians with a new species from the East Carpathians. Folia Geobotanica. 1999;34:321–335. doi: 10.1007/BF02912818. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Höhn M., Lendvay B. Syringajosikaea . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species . 2018;2018:e.T162267A99428926. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-1.RLTS.T162267A99428926.en. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Holub Josef, Křísa Bohdan. Pyrolacarpatica Holub etKřísa, a new species among European Wintergreens; with remarks on the name “Pyrolaintermedia”. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica. 1971;6(1):81–92. doi: 10.1007/bf02851839. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Holub J. Reclassifications and new names in vascular plants 1. Preslia. 1998;70:97–122. [Google Scholar]
  115. Hooker W. Crocusspeciosus . https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/14345 Curtis’s botanical magazine. Series II. 1840;67(14):t. 3861. [Google Scholar]
  116. Hrouda L., Šourková M. In: Květena České republiky. Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J., Křísa B., editors. Vol. 3. Academia; Praha: 1992. Chrysosplenium L. – mokrýš.420-422 [Google Scholar]
  117. Hruby J. Campanulastudien innerhalb der Vulgares und ihrer Verwandten. http://real-j.mtak.hu/9913/ Magyar Botanikai Lapok. 1930;29:152–269. [Google Scholar]
  118. Library Hungarian Electronic. Elektronikus Periodika Archívum. http://epa.oszk.hu/html/ [2023-02-01T00:00:00+02:00]. http://epa.oszk.hu/html/
  119. Hurdu B. I., Puşcaş M., Turtureanu P. D., Niketić M., Vonica G., Coldea G. A critical evaluation of the Carpathian endemic plant taxa list from the Romanian Carpathians. Contributii Botanice. 2012;47:39–47. [Google Scholar]
  120. Indreica A. Festucaamethystina in the sessile oak forests from upper basin of Olt river. Revista Contributii Botanice. 2007;42:11–18. [Google Scholar]
  121. Archive Internet. https://archive.org/ [2022-08-03T00:00:00+03:00]. https://archive.org/
  122. IPNI International Plant Names Index. https://www.ipni.org/ [2023-05-31T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.ipni.org/
  123. Ishchuk L. Analysis of willow (Salix L.) flora in Ukrainian Carpathians. Revista Botanică. 2017;9(1):50–55. [Google Scholar]
  124. IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2 . https://www.iucnredlist.org. [2022-12-14T00:00:00+02:00]. https://www.iucnredlist.org
  125. consortium JACQ. JACQ virtual herbaria. https://www.jacq.org/ [2023-06-20T00:00:00+03:00]. https://www.jacq.org/
  126. Jafari Farzaneh, Zarre Shahin, Gholipour Abbas, Eggens Frida, Rabeler Richard K., Oxelman Bengt. A new taxonomic backbone for the infrageneric classification of the species‐rich genus Silene (Caryophyllaceae) TAXON. 2020;69(2):337–368. doi: 10.1002/tax.12230. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  127. Jakubowska-Gabara J. Distribution of FestucaamethyslinaL.subsp.ritschilli (Hackel) Lemke ex Markgr.-Dannenb. in Poland. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 1994;63(1):87–95. doi: 10.5586/asbp.1994.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Jalas J. Atlas florae europaeae: distribution of vascular plants in Europe. Vol. 12. Resedaceae to Platanaceae. Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe, Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  129. Janka Victor. Zur Flora von Siebenbürgen. Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1858;8(6):196–201. doi: 10.1007/bf02106081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  130. Janka V. Correspondenz. Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1882;32(9):309–310. doi: 10.1007/bf01653621. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  131. Janka V. Plantae novae. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/96699 Természetrajzi Füzetek kiadja a Magyar nemzeti Muzeum. 1884;8:28–29. [Google Scholar]
  132. Jasiewicz A., editor. Flora Polska – Rośliny naczyniowe Polski i ziem ościennych. Vol. 14. PWN; Warszawa–Krakow: 1980. [Google Scholar]
  133. Jasiewicz A., editor. Flora Polski – Rosliny Naczyniowe (1985-1992) 3-5. PWN; Warszawa–Krakow: 1985. [Google Scholar]
  134. Jávorka S. Magyar flóra (1924-1925) 1-3. Studium; Budapest: 1924. [Google Scholar]
  135. Jeanmonod D., Bocquet G. Propositions pour un traitement taxonomique du Silenenutans L. (Caryophyllaceae) Candollea. 1983;38:267–295. [Google Scholar]
  136. Jelenevsky A., Derviz-Sokolova T. De speciebus duabus europaeis generis Ranunculus L. (Ranunculaceae) notae. Novosti Sistematiki Vysshykh Rasteniy - Novitates Systematicae Plantarum Vascularium. 1986;23:55–60. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  137. JSTOR Global plants. https://plants.jstor.org/ [2023-06-20T00:00:00+03:00]. https://plants.jstor.org/
  138. Kagalo O. O. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Drik malonasinniy. Genista oligosperma (Andrae) Simonk.462. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  139. Kagalo O. O., Sytschak N. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Dzvonyky karpatski. Campanula carpatica Jacq. (C. reniformis Schur)381. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  140. Kagalo O. O., Sytschak N. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Armeria pokutska. Armeria pocutica Pawł. (A. elongata auct. non (Hoffm.) W.D.J. Koch., A. maritima (Mill.) Willd. subsp. elongata auct. non (Hoffm.) Bonnier, A. vulgaris auct. non Willd.)517. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  141. Kiedrzyński M., Zielińska K. M., Kiedrzyńska E., Jakubowska-Gabara J. Regional climate and geology affecting habitat availability for a relict plant in a plain landscape: the case of Festucaamethystina L. in Poland. Plant Ecology & Diversity. 2015;8(3):331–341. doi: 10.1080/17550874.2014.904951. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  142. Killias E. Die Flora des Unterengadins, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der speciellen Standorte und der allgemeinen Vegetationsverhältnisse. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss des Unterengadins. Jahresbericht Der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Graubündens. 1887;31:1–266. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.9630. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  143. Kliment J. Komentovaný prehľad vyšších rastlín flóry Slovenska, uvádzaných v literatúre ako endemické taxóny. Bulletin Slovenskej Botanickej Spoločnosti. 1999;21(Suppl. 4):1–434. [Google Scholar]
  144. Kliment J., Turis P., Janišová M. Taxa of vascular plants endemic to the Carpathian Mts. Preslia. 2016;88(1):19–76. [Google Scholar]
  145. Klokov M. V. In: Flora of UkrSSR. Kotov M. I., editor. IX. Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR; Kyiv: 1960. Rodyna Gubotsviti – Labiatae Juss.5-364. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  146. Knotek A., Konečná V., Wos G., Požárová D., Šrámková G., Bohutínská M., Zeisek V., Marhold K., Kolář F. Parallel alpine differentiation in Arabidopsisarenosa. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020;11:Article 561526. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.561526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Kobiv V. Distribution and individual and group parameters of Symphytumcordatum Waldst. et Kit. ex Willd. In lowland conditions in the Western Ukraine. Proceedings of the State Natural History Museum. 2007;23:137–144. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  148. Kobiv Y. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Molodylo girske. Sempervivum montanum L. (incl. S. montanum L. subsp. carpaticum Wettst. ex Hayek, S. carpathicum Wettst. ex Prodan non G. Reuss)418. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  149. Kobiv Y., Prokopiv A., Nachychko V., Borsukevych L., Helesh M. Distribution and population status of rare plant species in the Marmarosh Mountains (Ukrainian Carpathians. Ukrainian Botanical Journal. 2017;74(2):163–176. doi: 10.15407/ukrbotj74.02.163. Ukainian. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  150. Koch K. Beiträge zu einer Flora des Orientes. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/109824 Linnaea. 1850;23(7):577–713. [Google Scholar]
  151. Kolář F., Lučanová M., Záveská E., Fuxová G., Mandáková T., Španiel S., Senko D., Svitok M., Kolník M., Gudžinskas Z., Marhold K. Ecological segregation does not drive the intricate parapatric distribution of diploid and tetraploid cytotypes of the Arabidopsisarenosa group (Brassicaceae) Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2016;119(3):673–688. doi: 10.1111/bij.12479. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  152. Kolesnyk A. V. The essence of the taxon and intraspecific systematics of Scillabifolia agg. in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Scientific Proceedings of Uzhgorod State University. Series Biology. 2001;9:236–243. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  153. Kolesnyk A. V. Genus Scilla L. within the flora of the Ukrainian Carpathians (systematics, ecological-geographic, biological and population peculiarities). Doctoral dissertation. M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Kyiv: 2003. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  154. Komarov V. L. Flora of USSR (1934-1960) 1-29. Academy of Sciences of USSR; Moscow-Leningrad: 1934. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  155. Kondracki J. Karpaty. Wydawnictwo Szkolne i Pedagogiczne; Warszawa: 1989. [Google Scholar]
  156. Kosiński P., Adreas Hilpold A. B. Taxonomic differentiation of Salixretusa agg. (Salicaceae) based on leaf characteristics. Dendrobiology. 2017;78:40–50. doi: 10.12657/denbio.078.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  157. Kosiński P., Sliwinska E., Hilpold A., Boratyński A. DNA ploidy in Salixretusa agg. only partly in line with its morphology and taxonomy. Nordic Journal of Botany. 2019;37(7):Article e02197. doi: 10.1111/njb.02197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  158. Kotov M. I. In: Flora of UkrSSR. Kotov M. I., editor. X. Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR; Kyiv: 1961. Rodyna Chersakovi – Dipsacaceae Lindl.339-379. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  159. Koutecký P., Štěpánek J., Bad’urova T. Differentiation between diploid and tetraploid Centaureaphrygia: mating barriers, morphology and geographic distribution. Preslia. 2012;84(1):1–32. [Google Scholar]
  160. Kovanda M. Campanulatatrae, the correct name for Campanulapolymorpha. Preslia. 1975;47:26–30. [Google Scholar]
  161. Krajina V. Monografická studie druhů Festucavaria (Haenke) a Festucaversicolor (Tausch) Krajina. Spisy Vydávané Přírodovĕdeckou Fakultou Karlovy University. 1930;106:1–46. [Google Scholar]
  162. Krajina V. Bemerkungen zur Verbreitung und Systematik einiger Arten der Gattung Festuca in den rumänischen Karpathen. https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=gbi-001%3A1933%3A10#5 Veröffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Stiftung Rübel, in Zürich. 1933;10:26–53. [Google Scholar]
  163. Kricsfalusy V., Vajnagi A. Biologie und Oekologie von Scillakladnii Schur in Ostkarpaten. Linzer Biologische Beiträge. 1994;26(1):1081–1111. [Google Scholar]
  164. Kricsfalusy V., Budnikov G. Endemic vascular plants in the Ukrainian Carpathians. In: Hamor F. D., editor. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “People and mountains”; Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “People and mountains”; Rakhiv. 2002, October 14–18; 2002. 356-360. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  165. Kricsfalusy V., Budnikov G. Threatened vascular plants in the Ukrainian Carpathians: current status, distribution and conservation. Thaiszia. 2007;17:11–32. [Google Scholar]
  166. Kucowa I. Krytyczny przegląd gatunków wierzb (Salix L.) z osadów glacjalnych Polski. https://pbsociety.org.pl/journals/index.php/asbp/article/view/asbp.1954.043/6350. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 1954;23(4):807–836. doi: 10.5586/asbp.1954.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  167. Kuzmanović N., Barina Z., Šída O., Lakušić D. Typification of names in the group Coerulans of the genus Sesleria (Poaceae) Phytotaxa. 2015;202:103–120. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.202.2.3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  168. Kuzmanović N., Lakušić D., Frajman B., Alegro A., Schönswetter P. Phylogenetic relationships in Seslerieae (Poaceae) including resurrection of Psilathera and Sesleriella, two monotypic genera endemic to the Alps. Taxon. 2017;66(6):1349–1370. doi: 10.12705/666.5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  169. Lazarević M., Kuzmanović N., Lakušić D., Alegro A. L., Schönswetter P., Frajman B. Patterns of cytotype distribution and genome size variation in the genus Sesleria Scop. (Poaceae) Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015;179(1):126–143. doi: 10.1111/boj.12306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  170. Łazarski G. Festucaamethystina (Poaceae) - a species new for the Płaskowyż Jędrzejowski plateau. http://bomax.botany.pl/pubs-new/#article-4182 Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2016;23(2):370–374. [Google Scholar]
  171. Letz R., Marhold K. Multivariate morphometric study of the Sempervivummontanum group (Crassulaceae) in the West Carpathians. Phyton. 1998;38:323–336. [Google Scholar]
  172. Letz R. The nomenclature of the Sempervivummontanum group (Crassulaceae) in the Carpathians. Phyton. 2002;42(1):109–115. [Google Scholar]
  173. Lindley J. Crocusspeciosus. Showy autumn crocus. Edwards’s Botanical Register. 1839;25:t. 40. [Google Scholar]
  174. Loiseleur-Deslongchamps J. L.A. Notice sur les plantes à ajouter à la flore de France (Flora Gallica): avec quelques corrections et observations. Imprimerie de J.B. Sajou; Paris: 1810. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  175. Library Lucian Blaga Central University. Biblioteca Digitala BCU Cluj. https://dspace.bcucluj.ro/ [2022-12-24T00:00:00+02:00]. https://dspace.bcucluj.ro/
  176. Lut C. W.J., Veldkamp J. F. Guide to the plant species descriptions published in seed lists from Botanic Gardens for the period 1800-1900. https://seedlists.naturalis.nl/content/seedlists. [2023-06-11T00:00:00+03:00]. https://seedlists.naturalis.nl/content/seedlists
  177. Macalik K., Tamás R., Kolcsár L. P., Keresztes L. Present status of the Syringajosikaea Jacq. ex Rchb., an endemic species which contributes to the diversity of the Flora of the Carpathians. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Series Biologia. 2013;58(2):31–40. [Google Scholar]
  178. Malynovskiy K., Tsaryk Y., Kyyak V., Nesteruk Y. Rare, endemic, relict and marginally-ranged plant species of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Liga-Press; Lviv: 2002. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  179. Marcussen Thomas, Ballard Harvey E., Danihelka Jiří, Flores Ana R., Nicola Marcela V., Watson John M. A revised phylogenetic classification for Viola (Violaceae) Plants. 2022;11(17) doi: 10.3390/plants11172224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  180. Marhold K. Caryophyllaceae. Euro+Med Plantbase – the information resource for Euro-Mediterranean plant diversity. https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/49f3f935-a218-49f0-9acd-5bbd9c2b8739 https://europlusmed.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/49f3f935-a218-49f0-9acd-5bbd9c2b8739
  181. Martin H., Touzet P., Van Rossum F., Delalande D., Arnaud J. -F. Phylogeographic pattern of range expansion provides evidence for cryptic species lineages in Silenenutans in Western Europe. Heredity. 2016;116:286–294. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2015.100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  182. Mártonfi P. Thymusalternans Klokov - a new species of Slovak flora. Biologia, Bratislava. 1996;51(1):27–29. [Google Scholar]
  183. Mártonfi P. Nomenclatural survey of the genus Thymussect.Serpyllum from Carpathians and Pannonia. Thaiszia. 1997;7:111–181. [Google Scholar]
  184. Mártonfi P., Marhold K. To the legitimity of the name Thymuspulcherrimussubsp.sudeticus (Lyka) P.A. Schmidt. Thaiszia. 1998;8:17–18. [Google Scholar]
  185. Martyniuk V. O., Karpenko N. I., Kostikov I. Y. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of rare sileneae species of the Ukrainian flora. Scientific Reports of NULES of Ukraine. 2018;3(73):Article 2. doi: 10.31548/dopovidi2018.03.002. Ukrainian. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  186. Maximowicz C. J. Diagnoses plantarum novarum Asiaticarum. Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg. 1877;23:305–391. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.46308. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  187. Melnyk V. I., Batochenko V. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Akonit opushenoplodiy. Aсonitum lasiocarpum (Rchb.) Gáyer (A. degenii auct. non Gáyer)550. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  188. Ukraine MEPNR of. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine; 2021. Decree Nr 111. On approval of lists of plant and fungi species included in the Red Book of Ukraine (plant world) and plant and fungi species excluded from the Red Book of Ukraine (plant world) [Google Scholar]
  189. Meyer F. K. Conspectus der Thlaspi︁-Arten Europas, Afrikas und Vorderasiens. Feddes Repertorium. 1973;84:449–469. doi: 10.1002/fedr.19730840503. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  190. Michalko J., editor. Flóra Slovenska (1984-1988) IV/1–IV/4. Veda; Bratislava: 1984. [Google Scholar]
  191. Mihály A. V., Komendar V. I. State of population of Crocusbanaticus J. Gay in the Transcarpathian region of the Tisza valley. Tiscia. 1993;27:61–63. [Google Scholar]
  192. Mirek Z., Piękoś-Mirkowa H., Zając A., Zając M. Vascular plants of Poland: an annotated checklist. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences; Cracow: 2020. [Google Scholar]
  193. Mitka J. The genus Aconitum in Poland and adjacent countries - a phenetic-geographic study. Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University; Cracow: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  194. Mitka J. Aconitummoldavicum Hacq. (Ranunculaceae) and its hybrids in the Carpathians and adjacent regions. Roczniki Bieszczadzkie. 2008;16:233–252. [Google Scholar]
  195. Mitka J., Kozioł M. Aconitummoldavicum (Ranunculaceae) na Wyżynie Małopolskiej. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2009;16(1):7–25. [Google Scholar]
  196. Mitka J., Boroń P., Sutkowska A. Holocene history of Aconitum in the Polish Western Carpathians and adjacent regions: long-distance migrations or cryptic refugia? Modern Phytomorphology. 2013;3:9–18. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.161587. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  197. Mitka J., Bąba W., Szczepanek K. Putative forest glacial refugia in the Western and Eastern Carpathians. Modern Phytomorphology. 2014;5:85–92. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.161009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  198. Mitka J., Boroń P., Novikoff A., Wróblewska A., Binkiewicz B. Two major groups of chloroplast DNA haplotypes in diploid and tetraploid Aconitum subgen: Aconitum (Ranunculaceae) in the Carpathians. Modern Phytomorphology. 2016;9(Suppl.):5–15. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.159700. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  199. Mitka J. Aconitumdegenii . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019;2019:e.T129114432A129114435. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS.T129114432A129114435.en. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  200. Mitka J., Novikov A., Rottensteiner W. The taxonomic circumscription of AconitumsubgenusAconitum (Ranunculaceae) in Europe. Webbia. 2021;76(1):11–45. doi: 10.36253/jopt-10006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  201. Mosyakin S. L., Fedoronchuk M. M. Vascular plants of Ukraine: A nomenclatural checklist. M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Kyiv: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  202. Mosyakin S. L., Fedoronchuk M. M. New combinations for East European species of Sabulina (Caryophyllaceae) Phytotaxa. 2015;231(1):95–98. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.231.1.10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  203. Mráz P., Barabas D., Lengyelová L., Turis P., Schmotzer A., Janišová M., Ronikier M. Vascular plant endemism in the Western Carpathians: spatial patterns, environmental correlates and taxon traits. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2016;119(3):630–648. doi: 10.1111/bij.12792. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  204. Mygal A. V. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Shafran banatskiy. Crocus banaticus J. Gay (C. iridiflorus Heuff. ex Rchb.)118. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  205. Mygal A. V., Kagalo O. O., Felbaba-Klushyna L. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Buzok uhorskiy. Syringa josikaea J. Jacq. ex Rchb.527. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  206. Myklestad A., Birks H. J.B. A numerical analysis of the distribution patterns of Salix L. species in Europe. Journal of Biogeography. 1993;20(1):1–32. doi: 10.2307/2845736. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  207. Nachychko V. The genus Thymus L. (Labiatae Juss.) in the Ukrainian Carpathians’ flora: systematics and taxonomic problems. Visnyk of Lviv University. Biological Series. 2014;64:159–169. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  208. Nachychko V. O., Honcharenko V. I. Botanical-geographical characterization of Thymus L.(Lamiaceae) species in the flora of western regions of Ukraine. Visnyk of Lviv University. Biological Series. 2017;75:35–47. doi: 10.30970/vlubs.2017.75.04. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  209. Negrean G., Karácsonyi K., Szatmari P. M. Kárpáti, erdélyi, dácikus és pannon endemikus fajok a Szilágyság flórájában. Kitaibelia. 2015;20(2):259–267. doi: 10.17542/kit.20.259. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  210. Neilreich A. Nachträge zu Maly’s Enumeratio plantarum phanerogamicarum imperii austriaci universi. Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft in Wien; Wien: 1861. [Google Scholar]
  211. Novikoff A. V. Some features of anatomical structure of the stem of Aconitummoldavicum Hacq. and Aconitumlycoctonum L. em. Koelle (Ranunculaceae) Studia Biologica. 2010;4(1):109–114. doi: 10.30970/sbi.0401.068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  212. Novikoff A. V., Hurdu B. I. A critical list of endemic vascular plants in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Contributii Botanice. 2015;50:43–91. [Google Scholar]
  213. Novikov A., Mitka J. Aconitumlasiocarpum . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019;2019:e.T129089723A129089823. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS.T129089723A129089823.en. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  214. Novikov A., Mitka J. Spatial analysis and distribution modeling of Aconitummoldavicum in Ukrainian Carpathians and adjacent territories with special reference to the algorithm used. Plant Introduction. 2020;85-86:50–64. doi: 10.46341/PI2020001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  215. Novikov A. Developing the GIS-based maps of the geomorphological and phytogeographical division of the Ukrainian Carpathians for routine use in biogeography. Biogeographia - The Journal of Integrative Biogeography. 2021;36:Article a009. doi: 10.21426/B636052326. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  216. Novikov A., Sup-Novikova M. Endemic vascular plants in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Biodiversity Data Journal. 2022;10:Article e95910. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.10.e95910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  217. Novikov A., Sup-Novikova M. State Museum of Natural History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; 2022. [2022-10-02T00:00:00+03:00]. Endemic vascular plants of the Ukrainian Carpathians. 1.4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  218. Novikov A. Zenodo; 2023. [2023-03-16T00:00:00+02:00]. Working synonymic checklist of endemic vascular plants occurring in the Ukrainian Carpathians. 64. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  219. Nunvářová Kabátová K., Kolář F., Jarolímová V., Krak K., Chrtek J. Does geography, evolutionary history or ecology drive ploidy and genome size variation in the Minuartiaverna group (Caryophyllaceae) across Europe? Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2019;305:1019–1040. doi: 10.1007/s00606-019-01621-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  220. Nyman C. Conspectus florae europaeae: seu enumeratio methodica plantarum phanerogamarum Europae indigenarum, indicatio distributionis geographicae singularum etc. Örebro Sueciae, typis officinae Bohlinianae; 1878. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  221. Omelczuk-Mjakushko T. J., Chopik V. V. Genus Jovibarba Opiz (Crassulaceae) in the flora of Ukraine. Botanicheski Zhurnal. 1975;60(8):1183–1187. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  222. Onyshchenko V. A., Mosyakin S. L., Korotchenko I. A., Danylyk I. M., Burlaka M. D., Olshanskyi I. H., Shiyan N. M., Zhygalova S. L., Tymchenko I. A., Kolomiychuk V. P., Novikov A. V., Chorney I. I., Kish R. Y., Shevera M. V., Fedoronchuk M. M., Protopopova V. V. IUCN Red List categories of vascular plant species of Ukrainian flora. M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany of the NAS of Ukraine; Kyiv: 2022. [Google Scholar]
  223. Opiz F. M. Seznam rostlin květeny české. Nákladem Českého museum; 1852. [Google Scholar]
  224. Oprea A. Lista critică a plantelor vasculare din România. Editura Universităţii Alexandru Ioan Cuza; Iaşi: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  225. Könyvtár Országgyűlési. Hungaricana. https://www.hungaricana.hu/ [2023-03-15T00:00:00+02:00]. https://www.hungaricana.hu/
  226. Pachschwöll C., Pachschwöll T. A new find of Arabidopsisneglecta (Brassicaceae) in the Svydovets Massif (Ukrainian Carpathians) Ukrainian Botanical Journal. 2019;76(1):60–66. doi: 10.15407/ukrbotj76.01.060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  227. Parnikoza I. Y., Gilchuk P. V. Itinerary study of coenopopulations of rare and endangered plants in Rakhiv district of Zakarpattia region. Protection Affairs in Ukraine. 2002;8(1):35–39. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  228. Pawłowski B. O niektórych naszych wierzbach. Materiały do Fizjografii Kraju. T. 1. Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności; 1946. [Google Scholar]
  229. Pawłowski B. Flora Tatr. Rośliny naczyniowe. PWN, Polska Akademia Nauk; 1956. [Google Scholar]
  230. Pawłowski B. Observationes ad genus Symphytum L. pertinentes. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 1961;4(1-2):133–152. [Google Scholar]
  231. Pawłowski B., editor. Flora Polska. Rośliny naczyniowe Polski i ziem ościennych. 10-11. PWN; Warszawa-Krakow: 1963. [Google Scholar]
  232. Pawłowski B., Jasiewicz A., editors. Flora Polska. Rośliny naczyniowe Polski i ziem ościennych. 12-13. PWN; Warszawa-Krakow: 1971. [Google Scholar]
  233. Peregrym O. M. A taxonomic overview of the genus Euphrasia L. in Ukraine. Ukrainian Botanical Journal. 2010;67:248–260. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  234. Petri Anna, Oxelman Bengt. Phylogenetic relationships within Silene (Caryophyllaceae) section Physolychnis. TAXON. 2019;60(4):953–968. doi: 10.1002/tax.604002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  235. Piękoś-Mirkowa Halina, Mirek Zbigniew. Endemic taxa of vascular plants in the Polish Carpathians. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 2011;72(3):235–242. doi: 10.5586/asbp.2003.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  236. Pilger R. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gattung Plantago. VII. Sektion Oreades Decne. https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/records/item/14708-redirection Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis. 1926;23:241–270. [Google Scholar]
  237. Pilger R. In: Das Pflanzenreich. Regni vegetabilis conspectus (Engler) Diels L., editor. H. 102. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann; Leipzig: 1937. Plantaginaceae.1-466. [Google Scholar]
  238. Piscová Veronika, Ševčík Michal, Hreško Juraj, Petrovič František. Effects of a short-term trampling experiment on alpine vegetation in the Tatras, Slovakia. Sustainability. 2021;13(5) doi: 10.3390/su13052750. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  239. Plazi TreatmentBank. https://plazi.org/treatmentbank/ [2023-07-08T00:00:00+03:00]. https://plazi.org/treatmentbank/
  240. Podlech D. Revision der europäischen und nordafrikanischan Vertreter der Subsect. Heterophylla (Witas.) Fed. der Gattung Campanula. Feddes Repertorium. 1965;71(1-3):50–187. doi: 10.1002/fedr.19650710103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  241. Porcius F. Enumeratio plantarum phanerogamicarum districtus quondam naszódiensis. Papp; Claudiopoli: 1878. [Google Scholar]
  242. POWO Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. https://powo.science.kew.org/ [2023-05-31T00:00:00+03:00]. https://powo.science.kew.org/
  243. Prodan I., Nyárády E. I. In: Flora republicii populare Romîne. Nyárády E. I., editor. Vol. 9. Editio Academiae reipublicae popularis Romanicae; 1964. Genul 582 Centaurea L.785-951 [Google Scholar]
  244. Prots B. G., Kish R. Y. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Chyna transylvanska. Lathyrus transsilvanicus (Spreng.) Rchb. (Orobus transsilvanicus Spreng.)472. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  245. Pyke Graham H. Evaluating the Quality of Taxonomic Publications: A Simple Alternative to Citations and Effort. BioScience. 2014;64(11):961–962. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  246. Ratnasingham S., Hebert P. D.N. BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System (www.barcodinglife.org) Molecular Ecology Notes. 2007;7(3):355–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  247. Răvăruţ M. In: Flora Reipublicae Populare România. Săvulescu T., editor. Vol. 4. Editio Academiae Reipublicae Popularis Romanicae; 1956. Fam. 46. Saxifragaceae DC.87-148 [Google Scholar]
  248. REAL-J repository of the Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. http://real-j.mtak.hu/ [2023-02-10T00:00:00+02:00]. http://real-j.mtak.hu/
  249. Rewicz Agnieszka, Tomczyk Przemysław Piotr, Kiedrzyński Marcin, Zielińska Katarzyna Maria, Jędrzejczyk Iwona, Rewers Monika, Kiedrzyńska Edyta, Rewicz Tomasz. Morphometric traits in the fine-leaved fescues depend on ploidy level: the case of Festucaamethystina L. PeerJ. 2018;6:Article e5576. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  250. Richter K. Plantae Europeae. Enumeratio systematica et synonymica plantarum phaenerogamicarum in Europa sponte crescentium vel mere inquilinarum. I. W. Engelmann Verlag; Leipzig: 1889. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  251. RJB-CSIC Biblioteca del Real Jardín Botánico. https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ [2023-02-10T00:00:00+02:00]. https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/
  252. Rochel A. Plantae banatus rariores iconibus et descriptionibus illustratae. Landerer de Füskút; 1828. [Google Scholar]
  253. Roleček J., Dřevojan P., Šmarda P. First record of Festucaamethystina L. from the Transylvanian Basin (Romania) Contribuţii Botanice. 2019;54:91–97. doi: 10.24193/contrib.bot.54.6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  254. Rybczyński J., Davey M. R., Mikuła A. The Gentianaceae. Volume 1: Characterization and Ecology. Springer; Berlin–Heidelberg: 2014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  255. Sagorski E., Schneider G. Flora der Centralkarpathen, mit specieller Berücksichtigung der in der Hohen Tatra vorkommenden Phanerogamen und Gefäss-Cryptogamen, nach eigenen und fremden Beobachtungen. II. E. Kummer; Leipzig: 1891. [Google Scholar]
  256. Săvulescu T., editor. Flora Reipublicae Populare România / Flora Reipublicae Socialistica România (1952-1976) 1-13. Editio Academiae Reipublicae Popularis România (Editio Academiae Reipublicae Socialistica România); 1952. [Google Scholar]
  257. Schmickl Roswitha, Paule Juraj, Klein Johannes, Marhold Karol, Koch Marcus A. The evolutionary history of the Arabidopsisarenosa complex: Diverse tetraploids mask the Western Carpathian center of species and genetic diversity. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):Article e42691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  258. Schultz Bipontius C. H. Sendschreiben an Herrn Victor Janka. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/37783. Oesterreichisches botanisches Wochenblatt. 1856;6:299–301. doi: 10.1007/BF02059367. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  259. Schur F. Sertum florae Transsilvaniae, sive enumeratio systematica omnium plantarum, quae in Transsilvania sponte crescunt et in usum hominum copiosius coluntur. Verhandlungen und Mitteilungen des Siebenbürgischen Vereins für Naturwissenschaften zu Hermannstadt. 1853;4:1–94. [Google Scholar]
  260. Schur F. Beobachtungen in der Flora von Siebenbürgen, nebst Beschreibung neuer Pflanzenarten und Varietäten. Österreichische botanische Zeitschrift. 1859;9:9–16. doi: 10.1007/BF01962324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  261. Schur F. Botanische Rundreise durch Siebenbürgen. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42663 Verhandlungen und mitteilungen des Siebenbürgischen vereins für naturwissen schaften zu Hermannstadt. 1859;10(7-8):137–182. [Google Scholar]
  262. Schur F. Enumeratio plantarum Transsilvaniae. Vindobonae; 1866. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  263. Sheliag-Sosonko Y. R., Didukh Y. P., Kukovytsa H. S. Distribution of Violajooi Janka in Ukraine. Ukrainian Botanical Journal. 1980;37(3):221–224. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  264. Simonkai L. Enumeratio florae transsilvanicae vesculosae critica. Magyar Természettudományi Társulat; Budapest: 1886. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  265. Šmarda P., Šmerda J., Knoll A., Bureš P., Danihelka J. Revision of Central European taxa of Festucaser.Psammophilae Pawlus: morphometrical, karyological and AFLP analysis. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2007;266(3):197–232. doi: 10.1007/s00606-007-0532-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  266. Šmarda P. DNA ploidy level variability of some fescues (Festucasubg.Festuca, Poaceae) from Central and Southern Europe measured in fresh plants and herbarium specimens. Biologia. 2008;63(3):349–367. doi: 10.2478/s11756-008-0052-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  267. Soldano A. Le sottospecie di Cesati: altre novitá e precisazioni nomenclaturali e tassonomiche su fanerogame d‘Italia e dell’area Mediterranea. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in Milano. 1991;131:245–256. [Google Scholar]
  268. Soldano A. Silenenutanssubsp.insubrica (Gaudin) Soldano, comb. nova. Candollea. 2001;56(1):137. doi: 10.5169/seals-879363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  269. Soó R. Systematisch-nomenklatorische Bemerkungen zur Flora Mitteleuropas mit Beziehungen zur südosteuropäischen Flora. Feddes Repertorium. 1972;83(3):129–212. doi: 10.1002/fedr.19720830302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  270. Starmühller W. Fortschritte in der Systematik der Gattung Aconitum in Siebenbürgen. Siebenbürgisches Archiv. 2000;36:9–24. [Google Scholar]
  271. Staszkiewicz J. Zmienność i systematyka taksonów z rodzaju Euphrasia (Scrophulariaceae; Orobanchaceae) w Polsce: 2. Analiza biometryczna taksonów i populacji z podsekcji Ciliatae. http://bomax.botany.pl/pubs-new/#article-3980 Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2015;22(2):141–302. [Google Scholar]
  272. Štech M., Drábková L. Morphometric and RAPD study of the Melampyrumsylvaticum group in the Sudeten, the Alps and Carpathians. Folia Geobotanica. 2005;40:177–193. doi: 10.1007/BF02803233. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  273. Štěpánek J., Holub J. In: Květena České republiky. Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P., editors. Vol. 5. Academia; Praha: 1997. Scabiosa L. – hlaváč.536-542 [Google Scholar]
  274. Štěpánek J., Tomšovic P. In: Květena České republiky. Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P., editors. Vol. 6. Academia; Praha: 2000. Thymus L. – mateřídouška.656-669 [Google Scholar]
  275. Steudel E. G. Synopsis plantarum glumacearum. Pars 1. J.B. Metzler; Stuttgartaiae: 1855. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  276. Stojko S. M., Tasenkevich L. Galiumtranscarpaticum Stojko et Tasenkevitsch - new species from the Ugolsky massif of the Capathian State Reservation. Ukrainian Botanical Journal. 1979;36(6):594–597. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  277. Stojko S. M., Tasenkevich L. Some aspects of endemism in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 1993;2(1):343–353. [Google Scholar]
  278. Surányi G., Máthé C., Mosolygó Ágnes, Borbély G., Vasas G. Analysis of genetic diversity in crocuses with Carpathian Basin origin using AFLP-markers. Acta Biologica Hungarica. 2010;61:149–155. doi: 10.1556/abiol.61.2010.suppl.15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  279. Szafer W., Raciborski M., editors. Flora Polska. Rośliny naczyniowe Polski i ziem ościennych. Vol. 1. PAU; Kraków: 1919. [Google Scholar]
  280. Szafer W., editor. Flora Polska. Rośliny naczyniowe Polski i ziem ościennych (1921-1947) 2-6. PAU; Kraków: 1921. [Google Scholar]
  281. Szafer W., Pawłowski B., editors. Flora Polska. Rośliny naczyniowe Polski i ziem ościennych (1955-1960) 7-9. PWN; Warszawa–Kraków: 1955. [Google Scholar]
  282. Tan K., Vladimirov V. Swertiapunctata (Gentianaceae) in Bulgaria. Bocconea. 2001;13:461–466. [Google Scholar]
  283. Tasenkevich L. Flora of the Carpathians: Checklist of the native vascular plant species. State Museum of Natural History of the NAS of Ukraine; Lviv: 1998. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  284. Tasenkevich L. Diversity of the flora of vascular plants In Ukrainian Carpathians. Proceedings of Shevchenko Scientific Society. 2003;12:145–157. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  285. Tasenkevich L. Regional phytogeographical division of Carpathians. Scientific Proceedings of the State Natural History Museum of the NAS of Ukraine. 2004;19:29–39. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  286. Tasenkevich L. Native flora of vascular plants of the Carpathians, its pecularities and genesis. Doctoral dissertation. State Museum of Natural History of the NAS of Ukraine; Lviv: 2006. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  287. Těšitel J., Štech M. Morphological variation in the Melampyrumsylvaticum group within the transitional zone between M.sylvaticum s. str. and M.herbichii. Preslia. 2007;79:83–99. [Google Scholar]
  288. Těšitel J., Malinová T., Štech M., Herbstová M. Variation in the Melampyrumsylvaticum group in the Carpathian and Hercynian region: two lineages with different evolutionary histories. Preslia. 2009;81:1–22. [Google Scholar]
  289. Thiers B. The world’s herbaria 2021: a summary report based on data from Index Herbariorum. Issue 6.0. http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The_Worlds_Herbaria_Jan_2022.pdf http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The_Worlds_Herbaria_Jan_2022.pdf
  290. Tomović Gordana, Vukojičić Snezana, Mirjačić Ksenija, Radović Ana, Niketić Marjan. Genus Viola L. (Violaceae) in Serbia collections of the Natural History Museum in Belgrade and the Institute of Botany and Botanical Garden 'Jevremovac', Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum. 2014;7:31–91. doi: 10.5937/bnhmb1407031t. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  291. Tomović G., Niketić M., Lazarević M., Melovski L. Taxonomic reassessment of Violaaetolica and Violaelegantula (V.sect.Melanium, Violaceae), with descriptions of two new species from the Balkan Peninsula. Phytotaxa. 2016;253(4):237–265. doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.253.4.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  292. Tutin T. G. In: Flora Europaea. Vol. 3. Diapensiceae to Myoporaceae. Tutin T. G., Heywood V. H., Burges N. A., Moore D. M., Valentine D. H., Walters S. M., Webb D. A., editors. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1972. Gentiana L.59-63 [Google Scholar]
  293. Tzvelev N. N. The genus Alopecurus L. in USSR. Novosti Sistematiki Vysshykh Rasteniy. 1971;8:12–22. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  294. Tzvelev N. N. In: Flora of European part of USSR. Fedorov A. A., editor. Vol. 1. Nauka; Moscow: 1974. Fam. 180. Poaceae Barnh (Gramineae Juss. nom. altern.) – Zlaki.117-368. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  295. Tzvelev N. N. Cereals of USSR. Nauka; Moscow: 1976. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  296. Tzvelev N. N. In: Flora of USSR. Fedorov A. A., editor. Vol. 3. Nauka; Moscow: 1978. Fam. 133. Gentianaceae. – Horechavkoviye.57-85. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  297. Tzvelev N. N. In: Flora of the European part of USSR. Fedorov A., editor. Vol. 5. Nauka; Moscow: 1981. Rod 20. Ochanka – Euphrasia L.268-281. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  298. Tzvelev N. N., editor. Flora of the European part of USSR / Flora of the Eastern Europe (1989-2004) 7-11. Various Publishers – Nauka, Mir i Semia, KMK; 1989. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  299. Tzvelev N. N. Plantae vasculares Rossicae et civitatum collimitanearum (in limicis URSS olim) Mir i Semia; Saint-Petersburg: 1995. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  300. Tzvelev N. N. In: Flora of the European part of USSR. Tzvelev N. N., editor. Vol. 10. Mir i Semia; Saint-Petersburg: 2001. Rod 20. Lutik – Ranunculus L.100-158. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  301. Ujhelyi J. Data to the sectio Bulbosae and section Caespitosae of the genus Koeleria. V. Annales Historico-Natürales Musei Nationalis Hungarici. Pars Botanica. 1965;57:179–202. [Google Scholar]
  302. Utelli A. B., Roy B. A., Baltisberger M. Molecular and morphological analyses of European Aconitum species (Ranunculaceae) Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2000;224:195–212. doi: 10.1007/BF00986343. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  303. Valdecasas Antonio G., Castroviejo Santiago, Marcus Leslie F. Reliance on the citation index undermines the study of biodiversity. Nature. 2000;403(6771):698–698. doi: 10.1038/35001751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  304. Valentine D. H., Merxmüller H., Schmidt A. In: Flora Europaea. Tutin T. G., Heywood V. H., Burges N. A., Moore D. M., Valentine D. H., Walters S. M., Webb D. A., editors. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1968. Viola L. [Google Scholar]
  305. Vasiliev V. N. In: Flora of USSR. Shyshkin B. K., Bobrov E. G., editors. Vol. 18. Academy of Sciences of USSR; Moscow–Leningrad: 1952. Fam. CXXIX. Oleaceae Lindl.488-525. Russian. [Google Scholar]
  306. Velev N. I., Apostolova I. I. A review of Potentillo ternatae-Nardion strictae alliance. Hacquetia. 2009;8:49–66. [Google Scholar]
  307. Visjulina O. D. In: Flora of UkrSSR. Klokov M. V., Visjulina O. D., editors. Vol. 5. Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR; Kyiv: 1953. Rodyna Zhovtytsevi – Ranunculaceae Juss.14-152. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  308. WBC Wielkopolska Biblioteka Cyfrowa. https://wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra https://wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra
  309. Wettstein R. Litteratur-Uebersicht. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1891;41(4):147–178. [Google Scholar]
  310. Wettstein R. Untersuchungen über Pflanzen der österreichischungarischen Monarchie. Österreichische Botanische Zeitschrift. 1894;44(7):244–249. doi: 10.1007/bf01795066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  311. Wettstein R. Monographie der Gattung Euphrasia. Engelmann; 1896. [Google Scholar]
  312. WFO World Flora Online. http://www.worldfloraonline.org/ [2023-06-01T00:00:00+03:00]. http://www.worldfloraonline.org/
  313. Wikimedia Wikispecies, free species directory. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. [2023-05-31T00:00:00+03:00]. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
  314. Wilkinson Mark D., Dumontier Michel, Aalbersberg IJsbrand Jan, Appleton Gabrielle, Axton Myles, Baak Arie, Blomberg Niklas, Boiten Jan-Willem, da Silva Santos Luiz Bonino, Bourne Philip E., Bouwman Jildau, Brookes Anthony J., Clark Tim, Crosas Mercè, Dillo Ingrid, Dumon Olivier, Edmunds Scott, Evelo Chris T., Finkers Richard, Gonzalez-Beltran Alejandra, Gray Alasdair J. G., Groth Paul, Goble Carole, Grethe Jeffrey S., Heringa Jaap, ’t Hoen Peter A. C, Hooft Rob, Kuhn Tobias, Kok Ruben, Kok Joost, Lusher Scott J., Martone Maryann E., Mons Albert, Packer Abel L., Persson Bengt, Rocca-Serra Philippe, Roos Marco, van Schaik Rene, Sansone Susanna-Assunta, Schultes Erik, Sengstag Thierry, Slater Ted, Strawn George, Swertz Morris A., Thompson Mark, van der Lei Johan, van Mulligen Erik, Velterop Jan, Waagmeester Andra, Wittenburg Peter, Wolstencroft Katherine, Zhao Jun, Mons Barend. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data. 2016;3(1):Article 160018. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  315. Williams F. N. The pinks of Central Europe. West Newman; 1890. [Google Scholar]
  316. Williams F. N. A monograph of the genus Dianthus, Linn. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Botany. 1893;29(203):346–478. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1893.tb02037.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  317. Witasek J. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Gattung Campanula. Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien. 1902;1:1–106. [Google Scholar]
  318. Zahradníková K. In: Flóra Slovenska. Bertová L., editor. IV/2. Veda; Bratislava: 1985. Sempervivum L.193-201 [Google Scholar]
  319. Zapałowicz H. Niektóre nowe, krytyczne i rzadkie gatunki (odmiany) flory Pokucko-Marmaroskiej. Sprawozdanie Komisyi Fizyograficznej. 1906;29:32–38. [Google Scholar]
  320. Zapałowicz H. Conspectus florae Galiciae criticus (1906-1911) 1-3. Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie; Kraków: 1906. [Google Scholar]
  321. Zawadski A. Enumeratio plantarum Galiciae & Bucowinae, oder die in Galizien und der Bukowina wildwachsenden Pflanzen mit genauer Angabe ihrer Standorte. W.G. Korn; 1835. [Google Scholar]
  322. Zerov D. K. Flora of UkrSSR (1950-1965) 3-12. Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR; Kyiv: 1950. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  323. Zhang Li-Bing, Kadereit Joachim W. Nomenclature of Soldanella L. (Primulaceae) TAXON. 2004;53(3):741–752. doi: 10.2307/4135448. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  324. Zuev V. V. System of the Russian species of the genus Ciminalis Adans. (Gentianaceae Juss.) Turczaninowia. 2019;22(3):144–149. doi: 10.14258/turczaninowia.22.3.10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  325. Zyman S. M., Bulakh O. V. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Kotiachi lapki. Antennaria carpatica (Wahlenb.) Bluff et Fingerh.290. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  326. Zyman S. M., Chorney I. I. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Chykhavka tonkolysta (dereviy Shura). Ptarmica tenuifolia (Schur) Schur (Achillea oxyloba (DC.) Sch. Bip. subsp. schurii (Sch. Bip.) Heimerl, A. schurii Sch. Bip.)332. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  327. Zyman S. M., Shiyan N. M. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Tyrlych rozdilniy. Gentiana laciniata Kit. ex Kanitz.488. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]
  328. Zyman S. M., Gamor A. F., Dremliuga N. G., Tukh Y. Y. In: Red book of Ukraine. The plant world. Didukh Y. P., editor. Globalconsulting; Kyiv: 2009. Dzvonyky Kladny. Campanula kladniana (Schur) Witasek.382. Ukrainian. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material 1

An alphabetic index of endemic species and infraspecific taxa of vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians

Andriy Novikov

Data type

Checklist

Brief description

This is an alphabetically ordered checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians.

File: oo_866643.docx

bdj-11-e103921-s001.docx (76.4KB, docx)
Supplementary material 2

Clustered synonymic checklist of endemic species and infraspecific of vascular plants taxa distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians

Andriy Novikov

Data type

Checklist

Brief description

This is a hierarchically ordered (with clustered homotypic synonyms) checklist of endemic vascular plants distributed in the Ukrainian Carpathians.

File: oo_866642.docx

bdj-11-e103921-s002.docx (67.9KB, docx)
Supplementary material 3

Revealed accessions to molecular data on the investigated species

Andriy Novikov

Data type

molecular data

Brief description

This table contains all accessions to molecular data regarding investigated species and revealed using the ENA and BOLD facilities.

File: oo_873626.xlsx

bdj-11-e103921-s003.xlsx (478.5KB, xlsx)

Articles from Biodiversity Data Journal are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES