Quad. Bot. Amb. Appl., 18 (2007): 3-76.
Herbarium updating: the case of Florence (FI) with proposals for a checklist of new entities after the Flora d'Italia (1982) by S. Pignatti
PI ERO C UCCUINI 1 & LORENZO L ASTRUCCI 2
1
Sezione Botanica "F. Parlatore'', Museo di Storia Naturale dell 'Universita, Via La Pira 4 - 50121 Firenze
2
Dipartimento di Biologia Yegetale dell'Universita, Via La Pira 4 - 50121 Firenze
ABSTRA CT. - Herbarium updating: the case of Florence (FI) with proposals for a checklist of new entities after the Flora d '/talia (1982) by S. Pignatti. - This publication gives the preliminary results of a verification of updating of material held in the Herbarium Centrale ftali cum . Our verification was based on two separate surveys 1) checking the Herbarium for all the taxa mentioned in Volume I of the "Flora d'ltalia" by S. Pignatti , i.e. for all material that had already been described and 2) everything published post the "Flora" and material which had never been considered as belonging to the Italian Flora. Whilst for the first investigation about 94% of the taxa turned out to be present, for the second the percentage of them fell to nearly 64% (out of a sample of about 860 new taxa for the Italian Flora). This count did not include the Hybrids that would have lowered this percent to 52%. Together with other considerations, the results show how the function of the Herbarium has changed in the light of the growing number of collections of exsiccata over all of Italy and with which a fruteful synergic collaboration is desirable. As an appendix to our study, we propose a checklist (undoubtedly incomplete) in the fonn of data sheets for all new entities for the Italian Flora.
Key words: checklist, new taxa, Italy, Florence, herbarium, updating.
INTROD UCT I ON
The idea of this enterprise first came to mind to verify which species of the Italian Flora are still missing from the Erbario Centra le Italiano since it was first established. The Herbarium , which has literally lived through the pre-and post unification history of Italy, has for almost two cen- turies reflected the scientific issues of Italian Botany.
Consequently the scientific specimens that slowly but sure- ly have been added to the collections over the years, often bear the tracess of nomenclatural layers and indications.
Our idea, that obviously can be ascribed to the category of
"good intentions" had immediately to face reality, i.e. what and how could we test the data we found in the herbarium and by what means, or at least, with what " logistic sup- port".
Our "forces" were the easiest datum (size) to check as much of the work, although spanning a very long period from about 2000 to mid 2007, could count on a standard of two people, not always the same, and several of colleagues from the Museum and especially outside help from both our Department of Plant Biology in Florence and the rest of Italy and abroad.
The Erbario Centrale Italiano is an old herbarium, per- haps the oldest of the more modern ones in Italy and the first to play a role in nationally unifying botanical studies on Italian Flora. Indeed it was founded in 1842 by Filippo
Parlatore ( 1816 to 1877), a young and already expert Sicilian botanist who came to Florence on the request of Leopold II of the ruling Hapsburg-Lorraine Family to hold Botany lessons at the Royal Imperial Museum of Physics and Natural History. His ideas gained the support of both the Sovereign and the scientific world of the time. Not only did he re-arrange the pre-existing botanical collections (which actually were rather modest), he significantly added to them, first with his own personal collections (Herbarium Parlatoreanum) and then through an intense programme of national and international exchange and herborisation in Italy and Europe (AA.VY., 1841 ; NEPI C. & CuccUTNI P., 1992 ; CUCCUIN I P. & NEPI C., 1999; MOGG! G., 1993;
PARLATORE f. 1841 , 1844, 1846, 1874; LIPPINI P. 1986;
PARLATORE (edited by Visconti), VISCONTI, 1993) .
This instrument of scientific research became the corner stone of the future Botanical Museum, within the already existin g Museo Mediceo/Lorenese (Medici/Lorraine Museum), that again incremented the botanical collections.
At various times it was incorporated into other institutions
and subsequently regained its independence until it finally
reached its present status that distinguishes the Erbario
Centrale Italiano as the largest and most complete Italian
collection of exsiccata. Today it is held in the Botanical
Section (ex Botanical Museum) of the Natural History
Museum of the University of Florence and naturally named
after its Founder.
The collections have grown remarkably since that 1842 so long ago, and now count over 3, 500, OOO specimens in the Phanerogamic Section of the Herbarium Cetrale Italicum (H.C.I), together with about 500, OOO specimens from the Cryptogamic Section (Fig. l ).
It is the Phanerogamic Section of the Herbarium to which we refer in this present study and in particular to the part relating to the Italian Flora that is preserved apart in special (grey) inserts that hold exsiccata divided into the various Italian Regions (including the historical ones that no longer exist such as Venezia Giulia, Venezia Euganea etc.).
There are many reasons why we chose this section but which we can summerise in just the following two:
I) It is undoubtedly the section that scholars have most consulted to date;
2) It is by far the largest (with about 1, 700, OOO speci- mens), yet in no way detracts from the importance of all the other collections, be they ancient or modem.
To be more precise, the research field was ascribed to the Phanerogams proper.
PROBLEMS OF FINDING DATA
Because Italy 's history is so complex, the exsiccata col- lected in Italy may refer to very different portions of territo- ry (for example the Flora by Fiori refers to an area larger than that of modem times whilst the Flora by Parlatore
Fig. I: One of the rooms in the Florence Herbarium (FI)
4
refers to a smaller one). The geographical reference (intend- ed as a geographical and administrative area) for new entries appearing after the Flora d'Italia by Pignatti can be taken as modem Italy (2007).
These collections account for about half the exsiccata in the H.C.I. and are preserved in covers , folders, whose fron- tispiece carries the official name with which the specimens were officially entered into the herbarium. Well, if we begin from this fact, we find there are over 13, OOO "names" in the Herbarium, far more than the probable taxonomical reality for Italy, whether we consider the species we know today from latest Flora or modem estimates. Faced with this dilemma, the authors and collaborators had to take stock of the situation. In some ways the Herbarium was in advantage because many of the new entities described for the Italian Flora can be found in the mass of material it holds and also because it is the seat (with the function of depository) for specimens mentioned in the lists compiled by the Societa Botanica Italiana for "Segnalazioni Floristiche ltaliane", subsequently "Notulae alla checklist della Flora vascolare italiana" (from n° 1151 in 2005).
AIMS
Our first aim was to find the names of the taxa of Italian
Flora (sensu Pignatti as the last reference) that are not found
in the Erbario Centrale, both regarding existing taxa (taken
chronol ogically from the last edition of Pignatti's Flora) and new taxa described or reported after that date (not nomen- clatural changes). Actually, our study had to begin many years before then , since we had to consider the publication and editing times of such an important work, going back to well before 1978 given as the last revisions.
The other objective, which in our opinion is just as important, was to compile a concise list in the appendix of all the new Italian taxa (floristic reports and new sp.) post Pignatti 's Flora that we found. We are sure that this will be a useful reference tool, regardless of whether the taxa are actually held in our study Herbarium or not.
As well as these scientific ends, this work offers a great occasion to ask all our colleagues, particularly those who work in other herbaria, or who are in any way involved in the study of Italian Flora, if they would contribute to filling the gaps in our Florence Herbarium by offering any dupli- cates they may have.
At the same time, in the indices for new taxa we have been able to throw light on both the authors and collectors.
These latter "interesting characters" have far too often been omitted from floristic-taxonimic studies, moreover they take on a double scientific value since they extend the field of research to include the history of botany in general (floristic itineraries, distributions, Museological data in s.l.
etc.)
MA TE RI ALS AND METHODS
Materials
Considering the mass of initial data, our study could not possibly be based entirely on investigations into exsiccatum alone, indeed it is the result of a union between (A) investi- gations and statistical sampling using data from Pignatti 's Flora d ' ltalia and (B) the entire revision (or at least an attempt) of the Italian Flora both on the level of new species described for Italy and first reports of taxa already existent for our Flora.
A) Statistical sampling
For our statistical model we chose the Phanerogam sec- tion in Volume I of"Flora d'ltalia" by Sandro Pignatti, and, to "test" the reliability of the data obtained, we established a set of controls from the Orchidaceae family (in Volume Ill of the work). For the latter we also bore in mind subsequent revisions by Prof. Paolo Grunanger (GRUNA GER , 2000);
because, as the author him elf writes " ... the work [is}
strictly based on the criteria used in the Flora d 'Italia (1982) by S. Pignatti ".
The choice of the two samples can be explained, in addi- tion to the general criteria mentioned above. first to a pure- ly casual fact (the variety of the families held and the total number of taxa to check amounted to almost the same in all three volumes, and is more than congruous for statistical needs) but it was also influenced by the need to achieve our results in a reasonable time - which analysis of the entire Flora would certainly not have allowed. As our "control" we realised that the Orchidaceae Family also presented a strik- ing criticality with regards to the updating of the "Flora d' ltalia'', a further reason for choosing it.
B) Update
We used all the Italian floristic reports published in both official (e.g. those of the S.B.l. - Italian Botany Society) and unofficial documents, and all new taxa described for Italy so stated by the authors themselves (obviously the authors of this publication are external to any decisions taken by the above mentioned authors) , from the early sev- enties to 2006 (at least this was our intention), and which are not included in the "Flora d'Italia" or previous works on the Italian Flora
Obviously it was by no means easy to set a precise year for when new data started to be introduced, in spite of the fact that 1978 is considered to be the last revision for the Flora d'ltalia. This date is valid for some families but not for others. In fact the procedures for Pignatti 's Flora, as the author himself admits , were extremely difficult. But we may say that bibliographical research to empirically find the point of contact of the specimens considered began in 1970.
Obviously all checks on the critical taxa were carried out in the collections held in the H . C. I.
Methods
The Botanical Section where the Herbarium, object of our study, is held has an informatics archive under the form of meta-data that gives the names on the last containers (covers or folders) for both Italian and foreign exsiccata: we therefore chose taxa for the Italian regions. As we already mentioned, they are certainly redundant with respect to the present number calculated for the Flora of Italy (about 6, OOO to 7, OOO). This is because to varying degree much of the material keeps the nomenclature of the three (perhaps four) main Italian Flora of the recent and more distant past, i.e. in chronological order the "Flora ltaliana" by Parlatore (PARLA TORE, 1848-96) the "Flora Analitica" by Fiori and Paoletti (FIORI AND PAOLETTI , 1896-1908), La Nuova Flora Analitica by A. Fiori (FIORI, 1923-29), Flora ltalica by Zangheri (ZANGH E RI , 1976), as well as taxa springing from revisions by specialists of some taxonomical groups, both in the past and more recently (apart from the fact that these have in some way been included in the above mentioned Flora , e.g. to mention but a few, Paiero (Salix) , Buser (Alchemilla), Foggi-Rossi G.-Signorini (Festuca), Cuccuini (Hainardieae), Van Soest (Taraxa cum), Zahn , Gottschlich (Hiera cium), Grunanger (Orchidaceae), Falciani (Stachys) , Selvi & Bigazzi (Anchusa and allied genera), Speranza &
Cristofolini (Dactylis ), Puppi & Cristofolini (Pulmonaria), Raffaelli (Biscutella) , Moraldo (Stipa) , Soldano (Oenothera), Baldini (Phalaris), Passalaqua & Bernardo (Pa eonia) , Pignotti (Scirpus), etc.).
The volume we have taken as reference includes 68 fam- ilies of which 22 belong to the Ferns and Fem allies which we do not consider in our s tudy. Therefore the Phanerogam families in our review total 46 (from the Pinaceae to the Leguminosae), as well as the Orchidaceae in Volume III.
Considering the situation of the taxonomical entities held independently in the Herbarium, in effect we inspected the names of the taxa mentioned in Volume I, which came to a total of 4, 812. Subtracting the 227 relative to the Ferns s.l. this amounted to 4, 585 names of various ranks of taxa (also taking into account the most important recognised syn-
5
onyms) as well as the different categories of validity men- tioned by the author (PIGNATTI, 1982) found in the "publish- ing tenns" of the above mentioned Flora. As well as the syn- onyms given next to the recognised species, there are vari- ous categories of valid taxa . Indeed , as well as the numbered binomials in bold print, or in normal print followed by a bar and letter, there are many more taxonomical entities in the Flora, as can be seen from the various li sts of species that appear at the end of the description of species. Just look under the headings "variety" or "observations", where other entities of any rank appear (see for example Chenopodium album L.), all copiously accompanied by descriptions of the characters that differentiate them from the reference taxon and often with synthetic distributions, finally arriving at the citations for the true and proper microspecies.
All the taxa which the author mentions as definitely not part of the Italian Flora have been ignored, since in his opin- ion they are the fruit of evaluation errors, neither have we considered taxa reported for Corsica , the Maltese Archipelago, the ex Italian areas of Venezia Giulia and Nizzardo. Species which are exclusively cultivated have also been excluded (even though in some cases they may have become wild, but their occurrence in the flora is ephemeral and irregular).
Here we provide a list of the nomenclatural indices and floristic literature with which the two reference samples and everything published after the Flora d'ltalia by Sandro Pignatti were compared: the on line nomenclatural indices from the Kewensis Index, later passing to the I.P.N.I.
(International Plant Names Index) site and the Med Checklist (GREUTER ET AL. 1984, 1986, 1989), the former Italian or regional Florae or from regions that later became Italian as well as foreign Florae, Checklists or subsequent floristic lists, when particularly important (PRESL 1826;
TENORE 1824-29, 1831 ; GuSSON E, 1827-28, 1832-34, 1842- 44; BERTOLO I A., 1833-54; GE LMI, 1896; DE NOTARIS, 1844; PARLATORE 1848-and following; CARUEL, 1860;
PIRONA, 1855; CESATI ET AL., 1867; MORIS, 1837-59;
ARCANG EL!, 1882, 1894; GANDOG ER , 1883-91 ; BARBEY , 1884; NAGEL! & PETER, 1886-1889; FIORI & PAOL E TTI , 1896-1908; MARCHESETTI, 1896-97; POSPI C HAL , 1897-99;
BARO I 1897-1908; DALLA TORRE & SARNTH EIN 1906- 1913; L. & M . GORTANI, 1905-1906; LOJACO
0,1908; ZAHN, 1921-1922; 1922 - 1938; FIORI , 1923-29;
DALLA FIOR, 1926; CIFERRI & GIACOMINl, 1950; PAMPA
II, 1958; VAN SOEST 1959, 1965 , 1969, 1974; T U TIN & AL. , 1964-1980; 1993; YIEGI &AL, 1974, 1981, 1990; ZANGH ERI , 1976; PIGNATTI , 1982 ; M E ZZENA (IN ZIRNI CH), 1986;
POLDINI, 1991 , 2001; POLDINI, 0RIOLO & YIOALI , 2001 ; ARRIG O I P.Y. , 2005; Co TI ET AL. 2005 ; FISCHER ET AL.
2005; WILHALM & AL., 2006)
For post Pignati times we studied the literature from 1970 to 2006 availing ourselves of the journals and other lit- erature in the Botanical Library of the University of Florence, in particular we completed our research by con- sulting some Italian and foreign journals and gradually inte- grating our findings with information we found. Italian jour- nals: Webbia, Nuovo Giomale Botanico Italiano later Plant Biosystems, Informatore Botanico Italiano, Allionia, Annali di Botanica, Delpinoa, Archivio Botanico, Gortania, Atti del Museo Friulano di Scienze Naturali, Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali , Annali del Museo Civico di Rovereto, 6
Bollettino della Societa Sarda di Scienze Naturali, Bollettino dell'Istituto Botanico dell ' Universita di Sassari, II Naturalista Siciliano, Flora Mediterranea, Bocconea, Braun Blanquetia. Foreign Journals: Willdenovia, Candollea, Boissiera, Lazaroa, Lagascalia, Collectanea Botanica, Anales de Jardin Botanico de Madrid, Milleilung der Bot. Staatssammlung Munchen later Sendtnera, Ecologia Mediterranea, Botaniska Notiser later ordic Journal of Botany.
As a final general control , we verified everything by means of a draft list of new names of the Italian Flora taken from the Checklist of the Flora Italiana, edited by the S.B .I.
in 2005 (CONTI
ETAL., 2005), as well as several corrigenda (various authors in litteris, 2006) and addenda for 2005 of the same Checklist (Conti in litteris, 2006; Co TI E T
AL.,2007) . For the latter we obviously took advantage of any findings that came to light, or which we considered as real- ly new to the Italian Flora compared to the entities published in the Flora ltaliana by Parlatore onwards, without ever referring to any changes in nomenclature or any kind of new combination, nor any re-evaluation of old taxa that appear in the previously mentioned Italian or regional Florae or gen- eral taxonomical revisions (Italian or foreign) for localities in Italian territory (only in 4-5 cases, which will be indicat- ed in the text, are the old names given since they were never published in any of the above mentioned works , not taken into account in the literature, or were invalidated practically at the time of their consitution).
In some cases of nomenclatural verification, it was nec- essary to consult the Atlas Florae Europaeae (JALAS &
SU OMINE , 1972-1994; JALAS, SU OMI NEN & LAMPINE , 1996; JALAS, SU OMI EN, LAMPINEN & KU RTTO, 1999 ; KURTTO, LAMPINE & JUNIKKA , 2004). In all other cases of taxa with varying degree of uncertainty (cases which are still under debate even for the regional "advisors", doubts on their distribution , "in verbis" reports, reports lacking any material documentation, simple reports in itinere or found in floristic-vegetational survey lists, nomina nuda at the time of fust publication and still waiting description) these situa- tions are included in the notes for the general revision list in Appendix 1.
RESULTS (A-STATISTICAL SAMPLI G)
Beginning with the previous inspection, the first prob- lem we came across was recognising, apart from truly valid taxa and indicated as such by the author, taxa already cited but that gradually assumed lesser degrees of validity, obvi- ously based on the opinions of the author and on the knowl- edge of the time, that occur in various parts of the Work and usually not numbered.
The use of character style can also sometimes be con- fusing when consulting the index or the text itself, because it does not always agree with the normal convention for validity of taxa. This all serves to underline that it was nei- ther a simple nor immediate task to find valid taxa men- tioned in the work.
Without claiming to have recognised everything that
should be recorded in the work, we found at least 2, 735 taxa
with varying degrees of validity. After subtracting the names
of the ferns s. I., those relating to geographical areas that
today are not part of modem Italy or again those whi ch the
author did not retain valid for reports for Italy or which he noted as an obvious error or very dubious (PIGNATTI, 1982) or lacking sufficient documentation, a total of 2, 439 taxa of different rank from various levels of nominative hierarchy remained and were considered. Summarising the relevant data, 1, 679 taxa (about 68%) refer to those considered valid from the nomenclature adopted in the Flora (i.e. numbered taxa and their relative infraspecifics) and 633 with other epi- thets, sometimes synonyms or various sorts of minor entities that appear in various lists (variability, observations etc.) Sometimes we also found cases in this second group where material existed in the herbarium kept separately, with both the updated name and the synomyn.
In addition to the data we found, it should be noted that several hundred other epithets also came to light in the herbarium which in general correspond to the specific term of the taxa mentioned in the volume but which differed in infraspecific entities (subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, etc.), as well as those referring to new entities with respect to the "Flora" of Pignatti. The first group of epithets was not considered in the comparison since they cannot be merged or compared, at least nomenclaturally, with the other enti- ties. In this respect it should be pointed out that this catego- ry of data, with numerous taxa, is s upported by several thou- sand specimens (less than 3000) that out of the mass of material for Italian Flora in the Erbario Centrale can be con- sidered as numerically insignificant (0, 2 - 0, 3%). Because of their taxonomic/systematic importance, we considered it helpful to keep them, also considering today's tendency to re-evaluate old names, so their definition has been post- poned to future verification and revision of the various tax- onomic groups to which they belong.
After this first inspection, it turns out that there are 281 missing taxa also of various rank.
For each of these, we checked the herbarium on deeper examination bearing in mind possible synonyms and rela- tive distributions. Almost 54.8% of them were found in the herbarium (and are included in the above mentioned 633 taxa), and 42. 7% ( 120 taxa) proved to be really missing whilst the remainder (2.5% taxa) showed serious problems of nomenclatural interpretation.
Proceeding with the analysis of the 633 taxa in the sec- ond group, we found that they can be roughly divided into three subgroups.
The first consists of material preserved under a synonym cited by Pignatti but which we also found as a taxon with updated nomenclature; we were therefore dealing with a duplicate and in rare cases even a triplicate. These repre- sented about 32% of this contingent The second group appears to be a little under 37%, these are entities with just one of the synonyms for taxa recognised as valid. Finally, the third group refers to taxa of minor rank up to microspecies, over 31 % of the total. Although obviously derived from a systematic heritage according to chronolog- ically earlier Florae, it was evident that the nomenclature had been taken, for example, from the "Flora Analitica d'ltalia" and the "Nuova Flora Analitica d'ltalia'', by Fiori and Paoletti (and successively Beguinot) and by Fiori respectively, as the two first subgroups widely testify. For our study purposes it is just as obvious and important that the second and third group of taxa, reported and recognised in different ways in the Flora d'Italia, be fully considered in
the computation of valid species. Considering these points, and with all the restrictions mentioned, out of the 2, 439 taxa considered in the Herbarium, about 94.7% are present, 4.9%
( 120) are definitely missing (see list) whilst the remaining 0.4% (7 specific and infraspecific entities of various degree) is represented by entities that for some parameters do not correspond exactly to those in the Flora of reference (par- tially discordant epithet, only partial correspondence of author/s), no doubt due, at least in the majority of cases, to human error in the transcription of the determinavit or errors coming from erroneous data in contemporary Florae or of bibliographical citations (as far as the revisions are con- cerned) etc. (Fig. 2). But these will in any case eventually be solved in the course of the slow (considering the size of the Herbarium) scientific revision of the material. All these data speak for themselves: they are modest if judged by number and the amount of time it took, but remarkable if we con- s ider the small number of professionals who dedicate them- selves to comparisons and revisions. Neither should we hide the fact, to avoid falling into the comfortable optimism we mentioned before, that we also found many other epithets for the Italian Flora in the herbarium; even though not a vast amount of material, they do represent over three hundreds relating to genera of Volume I of the Flora d ' ltalia. These epithets, probably also nomina nuda, that find no correlation nor correspondence to any synonyms with taxa known to date, are a sort of "historical screening" of many, if not all, of the nomenclatural adjustments during the history of the rtalian Flora in the widest sense of the tenn; obviously if these were considered, the previously measured values would change significantly (Fig. 3) Only with the help of the Atlas Florae Europaeae were we partly able to cut this number down, but the problem is far from being resolved and will probably only be so through the slow "digestion" of the terms that norn1ally happens in the management of the revisions in a large herbarium.
This is as far as the material relative to Volume I is con- cerned, but what about the others? We can only offer as evi- dence the results of the control we chose, for the Orchidaceae Family. Out of the 106 (or 107 if we consider Orchis sesquipedalis Willd dubitatively signalled for Italy) we found a total of 98 species recognised as valid in the herbarium. If instead of numbers we take the percentages and break the data down , it turns out that 92. 5 % are pres- ent (of which 23.3% with synonyms) compared with 7.5%
missing or problematic . This is not a mechanical superim-
position over our previous finding, but it is clear that it
approaches it considerably. This control datum, chosen cer-
tainly not from s tatic groups but from groups demonstrating
a high level of scientific dynamism , furnishes an honest
understanding that we have found many data approaching
the true state of the Collection . We also used this control
sample, now dated, to pass to the second phase of the work,
in the sense that the Orchidaceae Family was fortunate
enough to have been further revised not many years ago by
Prof. Paolo Grunanger (GRUNANGER, 2000) who, among
other things, also faithfully followed graphically Pignatti 's
work, so providing its natural continuation (for this family
obviously). We also checked the material in the herbarium
for this revision ( 18 years after the publication of the Flora
d'ltalia) and the following emerged: excluding homonyms
when the relative infraspecific entities were present (215
7
with and 190 without), it is immediately obvious how the total number of taxa has grown. ow there are 151 taxa, about 79.5 % (134 with modem nomenclature and some also with synonyms, 17 only with synonyns) 35 undoubted- ly missing ( 18%), 3 po e problems of taxonomic or distrib- utive definition (which could, after a more thorough control, join the valid species during the course of the work), I was not considered because not given for present day Italy. Of all the names cited in his work, 32 are mentioned only by Griinanger: 25 with modem nomenclature, 2 with synomyn and 5 that are mi sing. The other name of taxa considered valid with respect to Pignatti consisted of re-evaluations for former synonyms and new combinations of other names.
There is a net loss of about I 0 percentile points for this with regard to the new material present. Although considering the characteristics of the family, it cannot be denied that new entities were acquired more slowly.
THE SITUATION OF TllE !TALIA FLORA AFTER THE WORK OF PIG ATII ( 1982)
Basically we verified all that appears to be new to the Italian Flora since publication of the Flora d'Italia by Sandro Pignatti. In this context, we considered both new entities described for Italy and new reports of already exis- tent taxa for our country. It should immediately be pointed out that our search for data relative to new species for Italy, although incredibly difficult, probably doe coincide with the reality published (possibly with some gaps regarding hybrids in the Orchidaceae and especially the Violaceae). As for reports, we found ourselves facing a whole panorama of possibilities so vast and unforeseeable that reaching any sat- isfactory results still seems far away. But we had to go ahead in our attempt to check revisions in the Herbarium.
For our reports, we first checked the recognised list of
the "Segnalazioni Floristiche ltaliane"(AA.Vv., 1978-2004)
and " otulae Flori tiche ltaliane" (from 2005) (AA.Vv., 2005-2007) published by the S. B. I. (Italian Botanical ociety) in the "lnfomrntore Botanico Italiano", and then checked similar contributions in several journals such as the
"Bollettino della Societa Sarda di Scienze Naturali",
"Gortania", "II Naturalista Trentino", "Annali del Museo
4.8% 0,4%
26% C Taxa prt:sent In Pignatti
with tha valid names D Synonimk taxa CMl11lng tua D Uncertain taxa
Fig. 2 - Taxa pre ent in and mi sing from the FI Herbariurn and those mentioned in Volume I of the "Flora d'Italia" by S. Pignatti (with epiteth valid, synonymous, problematical taxa, missing) 8
Civico di Rovereto" and every now and then other journals of the civic museums (in the great marjority of orthem Italy). We al o consulted foreign journals, in particular Spanish e.g. "Lagascalia", or occasionally other Catalan journals, in which many Italian reports were published espe- cially for the Mediterranean, during periods of stasis in pub- lishing the Informatore Botanico. Obviously, our reports not only came from tudies by Botanists, lovers of Botany, from enthusiastic florists, but also from floristic tudies and sur- veys and/or observations as well as from citations from for- eign Florae, national and regional Checkli t , taxonomical revisions of various groups of every rank. In this last case especially, it was not always possible to treat them like the others, because they were the fruit of reorganization of already existing entries with changes of distributive dis- tricts, superimposed on taxa. Therefore, in revising the herbarium material, it wa , to say the least, strange and senseless as we were searching for the first reports for Italy, our own country. But in many of the other case mentioned, we were not dealing with "documented herbarium material"
but "in verbis" and "in litteris" evidence (for ome families, for example in the Orchidaceae itself, collecting the speci- men is not allowed, a tangible sign of safeguarding protect- ed Flora). Episodes like these tum the vast panorama of
"reports" into the documentary ambit, at the same time more dynamic but also problematic, so reflecting (both positively and negatively) how quickly our knowledge of our coun- try' Flora has evolved. It wa therefore difficult to adopt a criterium of uniformity in such a heterogeneou setting.
RESULTS (8- EW TAXA)
When comparing entries of new elements with Pignatti's Flora, we followed the same procedures we u ed in the first part of the work. This turned out to be quite easy for entities of variou taxonomical rank described ex nova for the Italian Flora, but more problematic for authentic or "proba- ble" new Floristic reports for Italy. The reasons have already been explained in the paragraph above. In the fir t place we considered over 2, OOO taxa of various rank which, from the seventies up to present, have for the first time appeared in our Flora, either during preparation or after publication of
11,0%
23,1%
61,2%
c Taxa present In PlgnattJ with the valld names
D Synonimlc taxa
C Missing taxa
D Uncertain taxa
eJTaxa present In Herbarium but not in Plgnattl (with regard to the vol. 1 of Flora of Italy)
Fig. 3 -Percentage of names in the various categories present /missing in the FI Herbarium including those that are not men- tioned in Volume I of the "Flora" by Pignatti.
Pignatti's Flora. After the final checks, this number fell to 858, of which about 10% before 1982, (including hybrids), even though a number of doubts remain as to whether some of them really are new for our Flora (particularly regarding Floristic Reports and, far more rarely, for new taxa described for our country).
The final contingent we checked and which, we repeat, does not claim to be the definitive "Checklist" of"new enti- ties" that emerged for the Italian Flora up to 2006, was com- piled with the aim of representing a congruous number of taxa that could help test to what extent our Herbarium has been updated. This was without considering, except in extremely rare cases where the datum available could have led to misinterpretation, any subsequent nomenclatural vari- ations or status of the taxa indicated. The authors are hon- estly convinced that the documented contingent does not differ far from the real situation (particularly for new taxa described for Italy) and that it is therefore important for drawing conclusions in the general sense too.
Obviously in the end not all the items turned out to be complete. This was due to some objective limitations in the possibility of finding documentary sources and the times it took some of our collaborators to reply or for us to interpret the answers or documents they sent us.
To evaluate our results from the survey we had to bear in mind two factors:
1) the problem linked to the actual presence of the regis- tered material in our Herbarium to test the degree of updating, and
2) analysis of the data themselves, regardless of their pres- ence in our collections, to underline current trends in the study of our Flora.
Moreover, at the end of our study, we have given a series of adjuncts including:
Appendix I: the list of the records of the taxa in our study with indices of authors and collectors of the new entities described for Italy.
Appendix 2: a second list oftaxa limited to just the binomi- als and regions of origin of probable new entities for the Italian Flora, which due to a number of reasons stated at the beginning of the list, it was not possible to finish and /or verify the relevant documentation within the time limits for consigning this work.
1) Summary of data obtained from the Herbarium check During the course of our study it immediately became apparent that the registered data did not all carry the same weight in the sense that they did not always refer to materi- al documented and conserved in available collections. This meant that the data had to be evaluated in two different ways. In the first case we considered all the registered mate- rial. It later emerged that for some groups, especially taxa belonging to the Orchidaceae, due to the established prac- tice of safeguarding and defending protected species, the specimens were never actually collected but documented in various ways (floristic relations, both film and digital pho- tographs); moreover, even when they had been collected (as in the case of many hybrids) they were held exclusively in private herbaria and not found elsewhere, unless in excep- tional circumstances.
Obviously checking these taxa in our Herbarium (or in any other Institutional Herbarium) would have been practi- cally useless.
In addition, at least for quite a few "Floristic Reports", the datum came from observations or indications in floristic or field reports, operations that not always entail collecting the specimen.
On account of all these factors, we performed a second statistical survey that did not include these data (orchi- daceae hybrids and a quota of floristic reports when defi- nitely dealing with observations).
As for availability, again in the case of Floristic Records, which proved to be the most critical material, the taxa pub- lished in th official S.B.I. bulletins in the Informatore Botanico Italiano, almost of which are in the FI Herbarium, are also often in the original scientific herbaria of the reporters and even more frequently in the personal herbaria of the collectors, which in the present study are not always given.
Taking this into account, we obtained the following data:
1 st survey (on all the material)
For taxa whose complete documentation, 52, I% is found in the Herbarium, 47.9% is missing. Separating the data shows that the majority of new taxa (of various rank) described for Italy are present (290 present v. 244 absent) whilst the majority of floristic reports are clearly absent ( 167 absent v. 157 present).
The conclusions that can be drawn strongly confirm the increasing tendency we had already reported relating to the 2nd check of material present 18 years after publication of Pignatti's Flora (the Orchidaceae by Grunanger). This is no doubt due to the inevitable loss of centrality of the Herbarium Centrale ltalicum in the Italian Botany scene fol- lowing the creation and increasing power of other similar structures, particularly in south Italy (Palermo and Catania).
This is coupled with the widespread growth over the coun- try of many small units mainly linked to Civic Museums in northern Italy, which tend to keep their own collections within the ambit of the regional or provincial territory.
Moreover, as can be seen from the data, the stasis during certain periods in the efficiency of the S.B.I. indices in pub- lishing Floristic Records, led many botanists to search for other openings to publish and preserve their material. In point of fact, in the recent past it appears that this difficulty has been solved with the introduction of "Notulae" that we already mentioned above.
2nd survey (exclusion of certain categories of data) As regards Orchidaceae hybrids only, we decided to omit them from the general count. Indeed, in spite of the fact that they alone account for about 20% of all the material investigated (Fig. 4), neither the "Flora" by Pignatti, 1982 nor, if not marginally, Grunanger's revision (2000) consid- ers them; neither are they to be included in the new edition of Pignatti (Grunanger in verbis 2006, 2007). In any case, they are hardly ever represented by actual material in the Herbarium.
This situation is also due to the fact that the study of this family is mainly the work of specialists from abroad who 9
rarely think about sending any study material (when col- lected) to Italian structures fonning part of cultural circuits outside our country itself (a situation born out by the fact that over 80% of new hybrids of various rank are missing from the Herbarium and those present are in great measure thanks to two Italian orchidologists, Professors W. Rossi and M.P. Grasso and a few other scholars like Professors P.
Bianco, G. Bartolo, S. Pulvirenti and P. Medagli). For all these reasons, i.e. connected to the practical impossibility of having this material on hand, we decided to omit them from the general count.
For similar reasons we did not consider about I 0%, taken cautiously in defect, of Floristic Reports that came exclusively from "field observations".
The figures that emerged are as follows:
With respect to the I st survey, the material present, and with complete documentation, amounted to about 64% of the total, the missing material to nearly 36%. As can be seen, the general trend is reversed. If referred to new entities described for Italy alone, the calculation changes again because in this case the material present would be an even greater percent. If we add to this the fact that in practice many researchers declare that some typus specimens are deposited in our herbarium but it sometimes takes years before they actually arrive here, then the last percentage we calculated may also be destined to increase even further.
Thus, although the above fundamental situation, i.e. the advancing loss of the H.C.l. 's centrality, still persists, the actual data that emerge nevertheless allow us to regard such events as the natural resizing of the Institution with the pass- ing of the years and consequent loss of its cultural monop- oly. However, to keep such a monopoly would imply our intent to hinder other centres from developing. In our opin- ion, a productive collaboration with them is on the contrary to be desired, aimed at a synergic programme for the diffu- sion of floristic studies in Italy.
2,9%
35,0% D New taxa (without hybr.)
43,6% O New hybrids Os.f.
18,5%
Fig. 4 - Percentage composition of new entities for Italian Flora (specific floristic reports, non-specific floristic reports - large areas, e.g. Italy, southern Italy etc. -new taxa (excluding hybrids), new hybrids).
10
2) The Italian Scenario
As already mentioned, the mass of this type of data also lent itself to considering its national importance, leaving aside the results for our own herbarium. Within the limits of its significance described above, but well aware of the con- gruity of the mass of data, it is clear (Tab. I) that:
A) the majority of the new entities for the Italian Flora, and in particular for new taxa described, comes from south- ern Italy (Apulia, Sicily, Calabria) and Sardinia Sardinia comes first with almost 1/4 of the new taxa for Italy, followed by Sicily and Apulia, with about 1/5 of the total each, even if a good proportion for Puglia con- sists of Orchidaceae hybrids and where the Gargano and Salento seem to be true treasure troves.
Undoubtedly the results for Sardinia were helped by the lengthy studies on Sardinian endemics and revisions of the genere Limonium and Genista, which have led to the compilation of the "Flora della Sardegna" (Flora of Sardinia), the second volume of which is due to be pub- lished this year (2007). The re-birth of studies on the Flora of southern Italy, framed within the prospects of studies on the Mediterranean Flora, undoubtedly deter- mined this explosion of discoveries over the last twenty years.
The situation is the opposite for northern Italy, where Floristic novelties are linked to Reports, particularly for N .E. Italy (Trentino Alto Adige and Friuli Venezia Giulia in primis). Central Italy exhibited an intennediate situa- tion, with good perforn1ances from Tuscany, Abruzzo and Lazio.
Tab. I - Percent of new entries out of the total for the Italian Flora and for each category (floristic reports s.1. and new taxa s.l.) for the different Italian regions
Re~ion Total(%) S.f. (%) New taxa (%)
Liguria 2,9 5,4 1,3
Piemonte 3,4 6 1,7
Valle d' Aosta 0,8 1,7 0,2
Lombardia 4,8 9,4 1,7
Veneto 2,5 4 1,5
Trentino-Alto Adige 6,8 12 3,4 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 7,6 15,4 2,4
Emilia-Romagna 2 2,6 1,7
Toscana 7,6 6,5 8,3
Marc he 0,8 1,4 0,4
Umbria 0,1 - 0,2
Lazio 4 4,3 3,8
Abruzzo 4,3 4 4,5
Molise 0,2 0,6
Campania 1,9 1,1 2,4
Puglia 11,6 3,4 16,9
Basilicata 0,9 1,1 0,7
Calabria 6,2 2,3 8,8
Sicilia 15,6 12 18, I
Sardegna 16 6,8 22
B) The territorial organization that these studies illustrated also turned out to vary considerably. In the North, the Universities are often directly responsible for promoting the studies, they are also enmeshed in a thick web of local identities, like the numerous Civic Museums, which in tum avail themselves of an equally thick capil- lary network of collaborators spread out over the territo- ry, a sort of "socialization" of floristic botany that has given remarkable results in a number of am bits ( cartog- raphy, vegetational studies). Naturally, private associa- tions of Italian and foreign florists, especially the orchi- dophyles, have operated all over the peninsular and come up with a veritable inflation of findings. In the South everything seems solidly connected to the Universities there, helped by the fact that several struc- tures (herbarium, journals) associated with 0.P.T.I.M.A., the most important botanical organization dedicated to the study of Mediterranean Flora, have their seats there. The same intermediate situation occurs in Central Italy, although there the University structures clearly predominate.
The general outcome of our research, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it a venture, allows us to be moderately optimistic regarding both the impor- tance of the role our Herbarium plays, regardless of the lengthy process of modernization, and about the fact that it can motivate other centres, both large and small, to patiently execute a similar sort of inventory. Finally, with the help of all those willing to participate, it enables us to direct our efforts to filling the gaps in our collec- tions.
APPEAL
Finally, we should like to take the opportunity this study offers to renew our appeal to all our colleagues in Italy and abroad who deal with the Italian Flora: please help us to fill the gaps in our collections. This is in the prospect of pre- serving these specimens and using them to the advantage of all the national and international scientific community according to the management of all public scientific collec- tions and in respect of the principle of conservation of spec- imens which are at the same time part of our cultural her- itage for today and the future.
Edited lists in systematic order follow for the missing taxa for Volume I of the "Flora d'Italia" (A) and for the Orchidaceae Family for both Volume III of the above men- tioned Flora (B) and the work ofGrunanger (2000) (C), and subsequently, as appendix, the list of records for new taxa or new floristic reports for Italy since Pignatti ( 1982) appeared, as well as any that had not previously been considered.
In Appendix I, taxa missing from the Herbarium are not preceded by an asterisk (*)
A) Anemone trifolia L. v. italica Oberdf., Pulsatilla alpina (L.) Del. ssp. alba Rchb., Ranunculus bulbosus L. ssp.
bulbifer (Jord.) Neves, R. ligusticus Pign., R. gardenen- sis Pign., R. fa/lax (Wimm. Et Grab.) Kerner, R. polyan- themophyllus Kock et Hess., Helleborus niger L. ssp.
macranthus (Freyn) Schiffner, Aquilegia nigricans Baumg., Aconitum platanifolium Degen et Gayer, Nymphaea alba L. ssp. minoriflora (Simonk.) Asch. et
Graebn., Fumaria transiens Sell, Fumaria muralis Sonder , Cardamine asariflora L. v. diversifolia DC., C.
opizii Presl., Lunaria annua L. ssp. pachyrrhiza (Borbas) Hayek, Alyssum strigosum Banks et Sol., Lobularia lybica (Viv.) Webb et Berth, Draba olympi- coides Strobl, Erophila verna (L.) Chevall. ssp. obconi- ca (De Bary) Vollm., Malcolmiaflexuosa (S. et S) S. et S., M. africana (L.) R. Br., Sisymbrium irio L. v. longi- carpum Albo, Erysimum metlesicsii Polatschek, E.
aurantiacum Leyb., Camelina rumelica Velen., Brassica glabrescens Poldini, Rhynchosinapsis cheiranthos (Viii.) Dandy v. petrosa (Jord.) Heyw., Diplotaxis eru- coides (L.) DC. v. hispidula (Ten.) Lojac., Biscutella raphanifolia Poiret, B. laevigata L. subsp. laevigata var.
glabra Gaudin, Dianthus sylvestris Wulf. ssp. gargani- cus (Grande ) Pign., D. furcatus Balbis ssp. dissimilis (Bum.) Pign., Silene acaulis (L.) Jacq. ssp. cenisia (Vierh.) P. Foum., S. vulgaris Garcke ssp. antelopum (Vest.) Hayek, S. vulgaris Garcke ssp. aetnensis (Strobl) Pign, Holosteum unbellatum L. ssp. glutinosum (Bieb.) Nyman, Cerastium lucorum Schur, Stellaria longifolia Muhl., S. glacialis Lagger, Arenaria moehringioides Murr., Moehringia markgrafii Merxm. et Guterm., M. x coronensis Behrendsen, M. bavarica Gren. ssp. insubri- ca (Degen) Sauer, Bujfonia paniculata Dubois, Spergula morisonii Boreau, Adenocarpus complicatus Gay ssp.
aureus (Cav.) Vicioso, Cytisus decumbens (Dur.) Spach v. multiflorus Fenaroli, Ononis hispida Desf., 0. denta- ta Solander, Medicago trunculata Gaertn. v. cosyrensis Somm., Trifolium nigrascens Viv. ssp. petisavii (Clem.) Holmb., Anthyllis vulneraria L. ssp. valesiaca (Beck) Guyot, A. x adriatica Beck, A. x bonjeanii Beck, A. vul- neraria L. ssp. busambarensis (Lojac.) Pign., Lotus collinus (Boiss.) Heldr., Psoralea americana L., Astragalus australis (I.) Lam. v. balmeus Beauv., A. cen- tralpinus Br.-BI., Glycyrrhiza echinata L., Coronilla pentaphylla Desf., Lathyrus cirrhosus Ser., Rubus napaeus Focke, R. areschoughii A. Blytt , R. vestii Focke, R. pilocarpus Gramli, R. cercophyllus Focke, R.
rudis Weihe et Nees, R. euprepes Focke, R. menkei Weihe et Nees, R. trifoliatus Pospichal, Potentilla tomentosa Ten., Alchemilla fissimima Buser, A.
inconcinna Buser, A. diversiloba Buser, A. schmidelyana Buser, A. semisecta Buser, A. pyrenaica Dufour, A. lin- eata Buser, A. illyrica Rothm., A. helvetica Brugger, Sorbus mougeotii Soyer - Will. et Godr., Saxifraga squarrosa Sieber v. grappae Massa!., S. taygetea Boiss. et Heldr., S. aspera L. v. aurina Lausi, S. allioni Gaud., S. sedoides L. ssp. tomentosa (Zenari) Poldini, S. car- petana Boiss. et Reut., S. aspera L. ssp. micrantha Pign., S. exarata Viii. ssp. leucantha (Thomas) Braun - BI., S.
moschata Wulfen ssp. carniolica (Huter) Br.-Bl., Cotyledon repens Grande, Sedum telephium L. ssp.
fabaria (Kock) Kirsch., S. montanum Perr. et Song. ssp.
orientale t'Hart, S. villosum L. v. glabrum Wilczek, S.
spurium Bieb, Jovibara arenaria (Koch) Opiz ssp.
pseudohirta (Leute) Pign., Aizoon hispanicum L., Paronychia cymosa (L.) DC., Herniariafontanesii Gay, Scleranthus aetnensis Strobl, Achyranthes aspera L., Atriplex portulacoides L. v. subastata Maire, A. mollis Desf., Salsa/a kali L. ssp. ruthenica (Iljin) Soo, Polygonum nepalense Meisn., Rumex obtusifolius L.
11
ssp. transiens (Sim.) Rech. f., R. bucephalophorus L.
ssp. hispanicus (Steinh.) Rech. f., R. obtusifolius L. ssp.
subalpinus (Schur) Celak, R. nivalis Hegetschw., R. den- tatus L., Viscum album L. ssp. abietis (Wiesb.) Abrorneit, V. album ssp. austriacum (Wiesb.) Vollman, Betula nana L., Quercus trojana Webb. v. macrobalana Gavioli, Sa/ix elaeagnos Scop. v. angustifolia (Cariot.) Rech. f., Pinus sylvestris L. ssp. engadinensis (Heer.) Asch. et Gr., Abies alba Mill. v. apennina Giacobbe, Juniperus oophora (Willk.) Kunze
Taxa missing from the Orchidaceae Family
The taxa underlined occur in both Pignatti and Grunanger
B) (sensu Pignatti, 1982) Ophrys sphegodes Miller ssp. sic- ula Nelson, 0. fuciflora (Crantz) Moench ssp. pollinen- sis elson, 0. scolopax Cav. ssp heldreichii (Schlechter) Nelson 0. scolooax Cav. sso. cornuta (Stev.) Carn., 0.
mascula v. olbiensis (Reuter) Schlechter, 0. romana Sebast. et Mauri ssp. fasciculata So6, 0. sesquipedalis Willd.
C) (sensu Grunanger, 2000) Nigritella austriaca (Teppner
& E. Klein) P. Delforge, N. cenisia G. Foelsche, W.
Foelsche, M. Gerbaud & 0. Gerbaud, Dactylorhiza romana (Sebast.) So6 ssp. markusii (Tineo) Holub., Orchis mascula ssp. olbiensis (Eut. ex Gren.) Asch. &
Gaeb., Serapias olbia Verg., S. vomeracea (Burm. F.) Briq. ssp. laxiflora (So6) Golz & H. R. Reinhard, S. ori- entalis ssp. siciliensis Bartolo & Pulv., Ophrys apifera Huds. v.jurana (W. Zirnrnerm. ex A. Fuchs) Ruppert?, 0. apifera Huds. v. bicolor (Naegeli) P.D. Sell, 0.
apifera Huds. v. chlorantha (Hegetschw.) Arcang.?, 0.
apifera Huds. v. aurita Moggr., 0. lutea Cav. ssp lutea, 0. Lutea Cav. ssp phryganae (Devillers-Tersch. &
Devillers) Melki, 0. numida Devillers-Tersch. &
Devillers, 0. laurensis Melki & Geniez, 0. jlammeola P. Delforge, 0. lupercalis Devillers & Devillers- Tersch., 0. arnoldii P. Delforge, 0. lojaconoi P. Delforge, 0. obaesa Lojac., 0. hespera Devillers- Tersch & Devillers, 0. caesiella P. Delforge, 0. tardans 0. & E. Danesch, 0. explanata (Lojac.) P. Delforge., Q.
scolopax Cav. ssp. cornuta (Steven in M. Bieb.) E. G.
Camus, 0. discors Bianca in Guss., 0. calliantha Bartolo & Pulv., 0. fi1ciflora (F. W. Schmidt) Moench ssp. parvimaculata 0. & E. Danesch, 0. mateolana Medagli, D'Ernerico, Bianco & Ruggiero, Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz ssp. orbicularis (K. Richt.) E.
Klein, E. heleborine (L.) Crantz ssp. treemolsii (Pau) E.
Klein
COLLABORATIO S
Obviously a work of this type, at least in some parts, would never have been possible without the help of a num- ber of people, especially many floristic specialists and tech- nicians in the sector. In our case, we must mention and fully recognise the work of some of our colleagues who for vari- ous reasons in their lives and careers have moved elsewhere but at different times were directly involved in the first stage of this attempt to assess the H.C.I.. Let us mention in this regard Drs. Laura Vivona and Isabella Mascaro once tech- 12
nicians in this Section. There have been many other collab- orators, especially for the phrase which dealt with identifi- cation of the Floristic Reports. Their support is gratefully acknowledged and their individual contributions are briefly given below.
LAURA VIVONA: (Dip. di Biologia Vegetate Univ. Di Firenze-Herb. FJAF); mostly helped with verification of the material for the first volume of the Flora d'ltalia and checking whether they were present in the herbariurn.
ISABELLA MASCARO: Dipartirnento di Sc. Della Terra, now a secondary school teacher helped with the computeriza- tion especially for the Orchidaceae and in checking the herbarium for new taxa for the Italian Flora.
ALESSA DR ALESSANDRI I, lstituto Beni Culturali, Regione Emilia-Romagna: furnished part of the documentation for Emilia-Romagna
CARLO ARGENTI: furnished documentation for Veneto and especially the area of Belluno.
PIERVIRGILIO AR.RIGONI, Dipartirnento di Biologia Vegetate Univ. di Firenze: furnished part of the documentation for Sardinia.
ENRICO BA FI, Museo Civico di Storia aturale di Milano:
furnished part of the documentation for Lombardy.
GIUSEPPINA BARBERIS, DIP. TE. RIS.-Polo Botanica- Universita di Genova: provided part of the documenta- tion for Liguria.
LILIA A BERNARDO, lstituto di Biologia Vegetale-Universita della Calabria: provided part of the documentation for Calabria.
DANIELA BouvET, Dipartirnento di Biologia Vegetale- Universita di Torino: furnished part of the documenta- tion for Piedmont.
MAURIZIO Bovio, Museo di Storia Naturale della Valle D' Aosta: provided documentation for uncertain cases in the Valle D' Aosta.
SALVATORE BRULLO, Dipartirnento di Botanica-Universita di Catania: on several occasions furnished documentation for Sicily.
SONIA COMIN: Dipartirnento di Biologia vegetale dell'Universita di Trieste: furnished part of the docu- mentation for Friuli Venezia Giulia.
FABIO Co TI, Dipartirnento di Botanica ed Ecologia, Universita di Camerino: furnished part of the documen- tation for the regions ofMolise and Basilicata as well as data for updating the Checklist for the year 2005.
GIANNANTONIO DOMINA, Dipartirnento di Scieze Botaniche dell'Universita degli Studi di Palenno: furnished some information on Sicily.
BRU o FOGG!, Dipartirnento di Biologia Vegetale-Univ. Di Firenze: furnished part of the data for the genus Festuca GABRIELE GALASSO, Sezione Botanica-Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano: furnished part of the docu- mentation for Lombardy.
GONTER GOTTSCHLICH (Tiibingen), for documents and infor- mation on the genus Hieracium
PAOLO GRUNA GER: provided much of the bibliography for the Orchidaceae as well as giving precious advice on the validity of the data.
LEONARDO GUBELLINI, Centro Regionale Floristico Marche : for some documents relating to the Marches.
MAURO IBERITE, Dipartirnento di Biologia Vegetale,
Universita degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza": furnished part of the documentation for Lazio.
RICHARD LORENZ, Leibniz str. I 69469 Winhein -Germany:
for some information on the genera Ophrys and Epipactis
PIERO MEDAGLI, Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale- Universita di Lecce: furnished part of the documentation for Puglia
CHIARA NEPI, Sezione Botanica de! Museo di Storia Natura di Firenze: helped with the selection of new entitites for the Italian Flora and taxonomic/nomenclatural verifica- tion of some taxa pertaining to the genus Rosa, she also gave precious advice in drawing up the manuscript.
FRANCESCO ORSINO: furnished part of the documentation for Liguria
FILIPPO PROSSER, Museo Civico di Rovereto: furnished part of the documentation for Trentino Alto Adige as well as some unpublished data for the herbarium (ROY).
MAURO RAFFAELLI, Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale- Univ. Di Firenze: as well as being the first person to inspire starting this project, also furnished part of the documentation for Tuscany.
ROLA DO ROMOLINI, Firenze: provided part of documenta- tion on genus Ophrys as well as establishing useful con- tacts with important orchidologists.
ANNALISA SANTANGELO, Dipartimento dr Biologia Vegetate Univ. Di Napoli: provided part of the documentation for Campania.
SILVIO SCORTEGAG A: furnished part of the documentation for Veneto and especially for the area of Vincenza.
ADRlA o SOLDANO: furnished documentation for orth West Italy in collaboration with Dr. D. Bouvet.
MARISA VIDALI: Dipartimento di Biologia vegetate dell'Universita di Trieste: furnished part of the docu- mentation for Friuli Venezia Giulia.
THOMAS WILHALM, Museo di Storia Naturale e di Archeologia di Bolzano : provided several data for the Autonomous Province of Alto Adige (South Tyrol)
RIASSUNTO - Vengono presentati i primi risultati di una verifica sull'aggiomamento dei materiali presenti nell'Herbarium Centrale ltalicum di Firenze. Tale verifica si
e
basata SU due campioni distinti I) il controllo in erbario dei taxa presenti nel primo vol- ume della "Flora d' Italia" di S. Pignatti, per il materiale gia da tempo descritto 2) ii pubblicato dopo l'uscita di tale "Flora" e di cio che non era mai stato considerato precedentemente nella Flora italiana. Mentre la prima indagine ha dato oltre il 94% di taxa presenti, per la seconda quelli presenti (su un campione di circa 860 taxa nuovi per la nos- tra flora) sono risultati quasi il 64 % senza consid- erare gli lbridi (con questi ultimi la quota scende al 52%). Cio, fra le altre considerazioni, testimonia ii cambiamento della funzione dell'erbario alla luce dello svilupo di molte altre collezioni di exsiccata vegetali in tutta I 'Italia, con le qualie
auspicabile una fruttuosa collaborazione sinergica. Come appendice al lavoro viene presentata una proposta di Checklist (sicuramente incompleta) delle nuove entita della Flora italiana, sotto forma di schede.BIBLIOGRAFIA
Aa.Vv., 1841 - Atti della terza riunione degli Scienziati ltaliani tenuta in Firenze nel Settembre de! 1841. - Tip. Galileiana, Firenze: 1-791.
Aa.Vv., 1978-2004 - Segnalazioni Floristiche ltaliane 1- 1150. - Inform Bot. ltal. 10(2)-36(1).
Aa.Vv., 2005-2007 - Notulae alla checklist dellajlora vas- colare italiana 1151-1310. - Inform. Bot. ltal.
37(2)-39(1).
ARCANGELI G., 1882 - Compendia della Flora ltaliana. - Ed. I. Torino.
ARCANGELI G., 1894 - Compendia de/la Flora ltaliana. - Ed. 2. Torino.
ARRIGONI P. V., 2005 -Flora Sarda. Vo! 1. - Delfino editore, Sassari.
BARBEY W., 1884 - Florae Sardoae Compendium. - Lousanne.
BARONI E., 1897-1908 - Supplemento generate al
"Prodromo della Flora toscana di T Caruel. -A spese della Societa Botanica Toscana, Firenze.
BERTO LONI A., 1833-54 - Flora ltalica. 1-10. - Ex Typographeo Richardii Masi, Bononia.
CARUEL T., 1860 - Prodromo della Flora Toscana. -Felice Le Monnier, Firenze.
CESATI V., PASSER!NI G., GIBELLI G., 1867 - Compendia della Flora ltaliana. -Milano.
CIFERRl R., GIACOMINI V., 1950-54 - Nomenclator Florae Jtalicae. Pars I, II. - Ticini ex typis C. Busca.
CONTI F., ABBATE G., ALESSANDRINI A., BLASI C., 2005 -An Annotated Checklist of the Italian Vascular Flora.
-Palombi Editori, Roma.
CONTI ET AL., 2007 -lntegrazioni al/a Checklist della Flora vascolare italiana. - atura Vicentina I 0 in press CuccUINI P, EPI C., 1999 - Herbarium Centrale ltalicum
(The Fanerogamic Section): The Genesis and Structure of a Herbarium. -Arti Grafiche Giorgi e Gambi, Firenze: pp 1-466.
DALLA F10R G., 1926 -La Nostra Flora. -Tipografia Ed. G.
B. Monauni, Trento.
DALLA TORRE K. W., SARNTHEIN L., 1906-1913 -Die Farn und Bliitenpjlanzen von Tirol, Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein, 4 teile. -Wagner'sche Universitiits- Buchhaudlung, Innsbruck.
DE NOTARJS G., 1844 - Repertorium Florae Ligusticae. - Taurini.
FISCHER M., ADLER W., OSWALD K., 2005 - Exkursionsjlora fiir Oesterreich, Liechtenstein und Sudtirol. -Linz:
pp. 1373.
FIORJ A., PAOLETTI G., 1986-1908 -Flora Analitica d'ltalia.
- Padova.
FIORJ A., 1923-29 - Nuova Flora Analitica d'ltalia, 1-3. - Firenze.
GA DOGER M., 1883-1891 - Flora Europae terrarumque adjacentium, Vols. 1-XXVII. - Paris.
GELMI E., 1893 - Prospetto della Flora Trentina. - Scotoni e Viti, Trento: pp. 197.
GORTA I L., GORTA I M., 1905-1906 - Flora Friulana con speciale riguardo alla Carnia. Pars. I, II. -Udine.
GREUTER W., BURDET H. M., LONG G., 1984, 1986, 1989 - Med.-Checklist. Vols 1, 3, 4. - Geneve.
GREUTER W., ET AL., (EDS.) 2000 - International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code). -
13
