2010/12/01 by Jiří Danihelka, Kevin van den Hof, Thomas Marcussen +1 · 1 citation
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Agricultural and Biological Sciences · #Biochemical and Structural Characterization #Botanical Research and Chemistry #Plant and Fungal Species Descriptions #Botany #Violaceae #Biology #Homonym (biology) #Alien #Genus #Law
paper · doi:10.1002/tax.596019
openalex publication_date 2010/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22
Abstract The taxonomic and nomenclatural histories of Viola elatior Fr. (1828), V. pumila Chaix (1785) and V. stagnina Kit. ex Schult. (1814) in central and western Europe are discussed. The names V. stagnina and V. elatior are lectotypified with specimens corresponding to the current use of these names. The neglected lectotypification in 1988 of V. montana L. (1753) with a specimen referable to V. elatior is briefly reviewed. The name V. persicifolia Schreb. (1771), used in some floras instead of V. stagnina, is analysed in detail, and we conclude that this name should be interpreted as referring also to V. elatior. In addition the types of V. hornemanniana Schult. (1819) and V. stipulacea Hartm. (1820) are conspecific with V. elatior. The use of V. persicifolia and V. montana, representing earlier legitimate names for the species widely known as V. elatior, has been notoriously confused for two centuries, and we herein recommend these two names for rejection in order to assure nomenclatural clarity and stability. For similar reasons, we recommend conservation of V. elatior against V. hornemanniana and V. stipulacea.