Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum

Primary tabs

Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum

Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum
  • =Leontodon taraxacum L., Sp. Pl.: 798. 17531,2
  • Leontodon vulgare Lam., Fl. Franç. 2: 113. 1779, nom. illeg.
  • Taraxacum officinale F. H. Wigg., Prim. Fl. Holsat.: 56. 1780
  • Taraxacum dens-leonis Desf., Fl. Atlant. 2: 227. 1799, nom. illeg.
  • Taraxacum vulgare Schrank, Baier. Reise: 11. 1786, nom. illeg. [is earlier homonym for Taraxacum vulgare Hand.-Mazz. 1907]
  • Taraxacum taraxacum (L.) H. Karst., Deut. Fl.: 1138. 1883, nom. inval.
    • Lectotype (designated by Kirschner & Štěpánek 2011: 2193): Dens leonis latiore folio Bauh., In Lusatia, Bohemia, Dania. J. Burser vi.37 (UPS herb. J. Burser, Hortus siccus vi.37, bottom left specimen)
  • 1. Kirschner & Štěpánek (in Taxon 60: 216–220. 2011), when lectotypifying Leontodon taraxacum L. (≡ Taraxacum officinale, providing the type of the generic name Taraxacum and consequently also of T. sect. Taraxacum), emphasised that the name T. officinale should be used, according to the traditional and generally adopted way, in a wide sense for the entire group of agamospermous polyploid microspecies and the closely related sexually reproducing diploids generally known as common dandelions and thus equated to T. sect. Taraxacum, but should not be equated by subsequent epitypification with a particular one of the numerous microspecies included., 2. A former lectotypification by Richards (in Taxon 34: 633–644. 1985) of Leontodon taraxacum L. (≡ Taraxacum officinale) has no standing and is superseded (Art. 9.17(b), Vienna Code). Kirschner & Štěpánek (in Taxon 60: 216–220. 2011) have shown that Richards lectotypification, equating this name, contrary to the unequivocally established use, with the N European T. campylodes of T. sect. Crocea and making the latter to the typical section of the genus, is in serious conflict with the original description of the species by Linnaeus. The crucial point made by Kirschner & Štěpánek (l.c.) is that the original description of Linnaeus diagnosed the taxon essentially to have reflexed outer phyllaries, whereas the specimen selected by Richards (l.c.), which is referable to T. campylodes, has tightly appressed to erect-appressed outer phyllaries.
  • 3. Kirschner & Štěpánek in Taxon 60. 2011
  • =Taraxacum lasianthum Koidz. in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 48: 591. 1934
  • =Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia Kirschner & al. in Taxon 36: 615. 1987
  • Taraxacum paradoxum Somes in Amer. Botanist 15: 27. 1909, nom. inval.4
  • 4. The name is here regarded as invalid because the author did not explicitly accept it. In his short note titled "A freak dandelion" he cited it for a teratological form with fasciation of the scape causing a leafy and branched flowering stem. He writes "I chanced upon a form of Taraxacum taraxacum (L.) Karst. ..." and "A friend ... suggests that I describe this form as a new species and call it T. paradoxa [sic]. However, it may be of interest ... that Taraxacum taraxacum (L.) Karst. (T. officinale Weber ....) does not always have a scape nor is its inflorescence alsways a single head. — M. P. Somes." The status of T. paradoxum in the paper of Somes is relevant because of T. paradoxum Palmgr. (1910) and thus whether that or T. acrolobum Dahlst. is the correct name for the respective taxon.
  • Taraxacum anceps, nom. inval.5
  • 5. 
  • Taraxacum eumorphum, nom. inval.6
  • 6. 
  • Taraxacum officinale aggr., nom. inval.7
  • 7. 
  • Taraxacum officinale subsp. vulgare, nom. inval.8
  • 8. 
  • Taraxacum rubescens, nom. inval.9
  • 9.