See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233501073

Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and

Mutata: 1

Article  in  Phytocoenologia · April 2011

DOI: 10.1127/0340-269X/2011/0041-0488

CITATIONS READS

11 600

4 authors, including:

Wolfgang Willner Jens Pallas

University of Vienna 30 PUBLICATIONS   848 CITATIONS   
183 PUBLICATIONS   3,716 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

H. E. Weber
Universität Vechta
269 PUBLICATIONS   5,668 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Batology View project

Flora of Central Europe (except Rubus L.) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by H. E. Weber on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Phytocoenologia, 41 (1), 59–70
Stuttgart, April 26, 2011

Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and

Mutata: 1

by Wolfgang WILLNER, Georg GRABHERR, Vienna, Jens PALLAS, Münster and Heinrich E. WEBER,
Bramsche

Abstract: With the 3rd edition of the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature, a special Committee
was established to faciliate and accelerate the decision of the Nomenclature Commission on submitted proposals
for nomina ambigua, nomina inversa, nomina mutata, and nomina conservanda. Here we present the first report
of this Committee. In the first part of the paper, a short overview of the major problems related with each of the
four categories is given. In the second part, 19 proposals are discussed together with a recommendation whether the
proposal should be accepted or rejected. Authors who wish to submit a proposal to the Nomenclature Commission
are asked to use this report as a guideline.

Keywords: Nomenclature, nomen ambiguum, nomen inversum, nomen mutatum, nomen conservandum, syntax-
onomy.

Introduction ficient for a definite decision. Meanwhile, the phy-

The International Code of Phytosociological Nomen-
clature (in the following referred to as the “Code”) is
based on two main principles: the principle of prior-
ity, and the type method (Weber et al. 2000). Both
are established to promote stability and to ensure the
unambiguous application of names of syntaxa. In or-
der to avoid the maintenance or re-introduction of
misleading names or the rejection of well-known and
long-accepted ones due to the rigid application of the
rules, the Code provides the possibility to establish
nomina ambigua (Art. 36), nomina inversa (Art. 42),
nomina mutata (Art. 45), and nomina conservanda
(Art. 52). The application of these categories requires
a specific set of actions by the users of the Code as
well as the Nomenclature Commission which is
regulated in the respective articles. The publication
of a nomen ambiguum, nomen inversum, nomen
mutatum or nomen conservandum remains provi-
sional until the Nomenclature Commission accepts
or rejects it. To faciliate and accelerate the decision of
the Nomenclature Commission, a special Commit-
tee was established, and authors were asked to send
copies of their proposals to this board. Instructions
for proposals and a list of possibly needed support-
ing documents are given in the Code (Weber et al.
2000: 764). The adopted or rejected proposals are to
be published as appendices of the Code, and after the
publication of a nomen ambiguum, nomen inversum,
nomen mutatum or nomen conservandum in one of
these appendices, its application is obligatory.
That is theory. In practice, however, things have
developed in a slightly different way: So far, only few
authors have sent proposals to the Committee, and
in most cases the documents enclosed were not suf-
tosociological literature is littered with provisional
nomina ambigua proposita, nomina inversa proposita,
nomina mutata proposita, and nomina conservanda
proposita, mostly without or with only marginal dis-
cussion of the reasons for the proposals. Obviously,
most authors are not aware of the many pitfalls in
the application of the articles mentioned above. In the
following, we want to give a short overview of the
major problems related with each of the four catego-
ries. Subsequently, we list and discuss some proposals
submitted to the Committee, together with a recom-
mendation whether the proposal should be accepted
or rejected.
The present paper is intended to serve as a guide-
line to authors who wish to submit a proposal to the
Nomenclature Commission. The author of the pro-
posal should give basic information on the syntaxa
and names involved, including considerations of va-
lidity, date and typification. A statement of the cases
both for and against rejection/alteration/conserva-
tion must be given. If there are different options to
handle the matter, proposers should explain their im-
plications and state the reasons for their own prefer-
ence. Proposals not matching these standards cannot
be treated by the Committee. The list of submitted
proposals will be continued in subsequent reports.
Rejection, correction, and conservation of
syntaxonomic names
A validly published name according to the formal
requirements of the Code must not be rejected or
corrected because it is considered to be less adequate

© 2011 Gebrüder Borntraeger, 70176 Stuttgart, Germany www.borntraeger-cramer.de

DOI: 10.1127/ 0340 - 269X/2011/0041 - 0488 0340-269X/11/0041-0488 $ 5.40
eschweizerbart_xxx
60
for the syntaxon (Art. 29a, Art. 40a). However, the
Code provides also some exceptions to this general
rule (see Art. 29b, Art. 35, Art. 41). For the purpose
of the present paper, Art. 43 and 44 are of special rel-
evance: When the name of a syntaxon is based on a
misidentification of the name-giving taxon or on a
taxon name that is used in an incorrect sense, then the
syntaxon name must be corrected (Art. 43). A cor-
rection in the sense of this article also occurs when
the name of an aggregate species is replaced by the
name of a narrowly defined species within that ag-
gregate. Such a case is therefore not eligible as nomen
mutatum (see below). It should be noticed that Art.
43 does not allow to replace a species name by the
name of an infraspecific taxon or vice versa. A spe-
cial case of a nomen correctum is regulated in Art. 44:
When a name-giving taxon name is rejected as a later
homonym according to the rules of the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN, McNeill
et al. 2007), it must be replaced by a different name of
the same taxon. The first effectively published choice
must be followed. In all cases mentioned so far, no ac-
tion by the Nomenclature Commission is necessary.
Authors should carefully check whether a syn-
taxon name is validly published and legitimate before
publishing a nomen correctum. In the case of syntaxa
above the association rank, the validity of all subor-
dinate syntaxa which have been quoted in the origi-
nal diagnosis (at least of the type-syntaxon) must be
proved. The same is true, of course, for proposals
concerning a nomen ambiguum, nomen inversum,
nomen mutatum or nomen conservandum. A con-
siderable portion of the submitted nomina mutata
proposita turned out to be invalid according to Art.
2b, 3a, 3b or 5 after checking the enclosed copies of
original diagnoses.
Nomina ambigua
Art. 36 of the Code is frequently used to get rid of
names which, due to the principle of priority, threat-
en a well-established but younger name. In most cas-
es, however, Art. 52 (nomina conservanda) would be
the more adequate one to handle the problem. In fact,
all cases where Art. 36 is applicable can also be solved
with Art. 52. The concept of nomina ambigua is re-
stricted to cases where a name has been used by most
authors in a false sense that excludes its type. There-
fore, all cases where the name-bearing type was not
excluded by the vast majority of authors, are not ac-
ceptable as nomina ambigua, regardless of how mis-
leading the name may be or how improperly it was
used in the past.
Nomina inversa
When a syntaxon name is formed from two taxon
names of which one is dominant or belongs to the
highest stratum, then the name of that taxon has to
eschweizerbart_xxx
W. Willner et al.
appear on the second place (Art. 10b). The concept of
nomina inversa is somewhat different from the other
three ones discussed here because the Code requires
that names not formed according to the mentioned
rule (e.g. the name Qu erco -Lith o sp ermetum
Braun-Blanquet 1929) must be inverted (Art. 42).
The latter article, however, requires to send a pro-
posal „with reasons for the corresponding inver-
sion“ to the Nomenclature Commission. At the same
time, Art. 10b states that names published on or after
1.1.2002 and not being in accordance with the rule,
are even invalid (see also Art. 3k). Obviously, the
Code is logically inconsistent at this point: If there
is an objective measure whether the name-giving taxa
have been placed in the right order or not, an auto-
matic inversion of incorrect names would be appro-
priate, and no action of the Nomenclature Commis-
sion would be necessary (analogous to Art. 41 which
regulates the correction of orthographic errors). On
the other hand, if such decision involved subjective
choices, no objective judgment on the validity of new
names would be possible. Problems arise especially
from cases where the two name-giving taxa belong
to the same stratum and none of them is clearly the
dominant one. The next edition of the Code should
provide an unambiguous rule for the correct order
of name-giving taxa, while nomina inversa should be
reserved for cases in which a name is to be conserved
in a form contrary to this general rule. For the time
being, decision on proposals for nomina inversa will
be postponed.
Nomina mutata
Art. 45 of the Code provides the possibility to adapt
syntaxon names to changes in taxonomic nomen-
clature. If a syntaxon name is formed from a taxon
name that is no longer accepted as correct name in
the most important taxonomic and floristic literature
of the past 20 years, it may be proposed with corre-
sponding reasons to the Nomenclature Commission
to adapt this name to the contemporary taxonomic
nomenclature. The most obvious problem concern-
ing this article is to decide on what is „the most im-
portant taxonomic and floristic literature of the past
20 years“. Certainly, all national floras have to be
included. However, in some countries floras older
than 20 years are still in use. Should they be neglect-
ed? And what about regional floras and taxonomic
monographs?
Authors of proposals for nomina mutata must
carefully check why the formerly used taxon name is
put into synonymy. In general, nomenclatural chang-
es can be divided into two main groups: (1) changes
due to purely nomenclatural (i.e. formal) reasons, (2)
changes due to new taxonomic concepts (i.e. scien-
tific reasons). Among the first category, priority is
the most frequent reason, but also conservation and
rejection of taxon names as nomina conservanda resp.
nomina rejicienda according to the ICBN. Special at-
Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and Mutata: 1
tention has to be given to cases where a taxon name
is rejected as a later homonym, because in such cases
correction of the syntaxon name according to Art. 44
must be applied (see e.g. proposal 10 – 11). If a taxon
name has been replaced because it was used in a way
that excludes its nomenclatural type, a correction ac-
cording to Art. 43 is necessary (see e.g. proposal 15).
Apart from such cases, a nomen mutatum propositum
will be accepted if it can be shown that the nomen-
clatural change of the taxon name is due to purely
formal reasons, even if some floras continue to use
the incorrect taxon name (see e.g. proposal 5).
More difficult is the situation if a nomenclatural
change is due to new taxonomic concepts because the
taxonomic treatment of plant taxa is partly subject-
ed to the personal judgement of authors. The same
taxon may be treated as species by one author and as
subspecies (or even lower rank) by another. Different
opinions on the rank of a plant taxon are therefore a
major source of nomenclatural change. However, this
is usually not a case for Art. 45 but for Art. 43 which
provides the possibility to correct a syntaxon name in
such way that the name of a broadly defined species
is replaced by the name of a narrowly defined spe-
cies. Recommendation 43A asks authors not to pro-
ceed with a correction when the specific rank is not
regularly attributed to a taxon in current floras, but it
remains unclear whether a validly published nomen
correctum has to be followed even if the narrowly de-
fined species used for the correction is not generally
accepted. Some members of the Commitee argue that
in such a case the correction may be ignored and the
original syntaxon name be maintained.
Another and perhaps the most frequent source
for changes of species names are changes in the cir-
cumscription of genera. In some cases, such changes
involve practically no subjective element and are gen-
erally accepted after a while. E.g. the transfer of the
species Asperula odorata to the genus Galium was
generally accepted, and the species is now treated un-
der the name Galium odoratum by all recent floras.
In such a case we can assume that the old name has
disappeared forever, and the mutation of the syn-
taxon name Asperulo odoratae-Fagetum into Galio
odorati-Fagetum can be accepted without hesitation
(see proposal 18). However, in many cases the delimi-
tation of genera is at least partly the personal view
of the author, whether he prefers a broader genus
concept or a narrower one. Consensus among floras
has hardly ever been achieved, and there is not much
hope that this will be changed in the future. There are
countless examples for varying treatments of genera,
e.g. Phyllitis (included in Asplenium or not), Hepati-
ca (included in Anemone or not), Pseudolysimachion
(included in Veronica or not) etc. etc. In some cases,
the taxonomic treatment of genera has been oscillat-
ing between the narrow and the broad concept for
many decades, and even if all floras have followed a
certain concept for 20 years (which is, however, very
unlikely), there is no guarantee that the pendulum
won’t move in the opposite direction once again in
eschweizerbart_xxx
61
the near future. In particular, the tradition of genera
concepts varies between different countries (with a
general trend from more broadly defined genera in
Western Europe to more narrowly defined ones in
eastern Europe).
Nomina conservanda
The possibility to protect names irrespective of their
priority was newly introduced in the 3rd edition of
the Code, and it has become quite popular to use pro-
visional nomina conservanda proposita in the phyto-
sociological literature. According to Art. 52, a name
must fulfil three criteria in order to be eligible as no-
men conservandum: (1) It must be commonly used
in the literature, (2) it must be validly published, and
(3) it must be applied in accordance with the nomen-
clatural type. In analogy to Botanical Nomenclature,
accepted nomina conservanda will be automatically
conserved against all other names in the same rank
based on the same type (homotypic synonyms),
against all earlier homonyms as well as against those
synonyms which will be specified in the Appendix of
the Code.
The simplest case is that a commonly used, val-
idly published name is to be protected against an
earlier but not commonly used one. However, it is
not unusual that the same syntaxon has two or more
synomyms being in current use (especially when the
syntaxon occurs in various countries). In some cases,
there may be good reasons to deviate from the prin-
ciple of priority, e.g. because the older name would
be extremely misleading (which might be the case if
a name was described for a syntaxon which, after re-
vision, has got a very different circumscription), or
because the name applied by the majority of authors
should be preserved. Such a proposal, however, must
be discussed with all pros and cons (see e.g. proposal
18), and in case of doubt the principle of priority out-
weighs all other considerations.
According to the current Code, conservation of a
commonly used name is not possible if it turns out
to be invalid. As an exception, association names of
the Uppsala School published before 1.1.1936 are
considered as validly published if accepted as nomina
conservanda (see also proposal 19). A special prob-
lem arises from names accompanied by an original
diagnosis that does not clearly fulfil the requirements
of Art. 2b. Numerous names of alliances, orders, and
classes have been published in the older days lacking
bibliographically complete references for the names
of syntaxa of subordinate ranks (e.g. Braun-Blan-
quet & Tüxen 1943, Klika & Hadač 1944, Tüxen
1950, 1955, Eggler 1952, Doing 1962, Oberdorfer
et al. 1967). Although the original diagnosis of the cit-
ed names can be inferred in many cases (Pallas 1997:
247, Willner & Grabherr 2007: 221ff), the major-
ity of authors follow a rather formalistic interpreta-
tion of Art. 2b, rejecting all of those names as nomina
nuda. Among the various problems that frequently
62
arise from later validations are (1) typification with
rather untypical relevés or syntaxa, (2) higher syntaxa
based on later homonyms because of multiple valida-
tions of the same name, and (3) an inflation of “ex”
in the author citations (see Recommendation 51A).
The validating authors were usually not aware of the
fact that the name which they were using had not
been validly published (or could not be aware of it
because the Code had not yet been established at that
time). Many cases could be solved by an amendment
of Art. 2b providing different regulations for names
published before and after the 1st ed. of the Code (see
also Art. 32.5. and 32.6 ICBN, McNeill et al. 2007).
However, even if such an amendment is accepted in
the next edition of the Code, doubtful cases will arise
which need action by the Nomenclature Commission
in order to stabilise the application of names.
List of proposals
(1) To reject the name L uz ul o -Q u e rcetu m
s e s s i li s Hilitzer 1932 nom. amb. prop.
Proposed by E. Oberdorfer (letter to J. Moravec,
19.1.1997).
L u z u lo - Q u e rc e tu m se ssi l i s Hilitzer 1932: 9. –
Typus: Hilitzer l.c. (Holotypus).
This name was published by Hilitzer (1932) in the
form “asociace Quercus sessilis-Luzula nemorosa (al-
bida)” with one single relevé. It is used for acidophi-
lous oak woods of a southern-temperate European
distribution. Whereas the original diagnosis is quite
plain, the form of the name raises several nomen-
clatural problems. It is formed from the two unal-
tered plant names Quercus sessilis Ehrh. and “Luzula
nemorosa“.For the latter, the synonym L. albida DC.
is given in brackets. Since L. nemorosa E. Mey. 1849
(= L. albida DC.) is rejected as a later homonym of
L. nemorosa Baumg. 1817, a correction of all names
based on that plant name is necessary (Art. 44). How-
ever, the epitheton in brackets seems to establish two
homotypic names of equal age (L uz ul o ne mo ro s-
a e - Q u e r c e t u m se ssi l i s and L u z u l o a l bidae-
Q u e r c e t u m s e ssi l i s) or may even be interpreted
as correction in the sense of Art. 44. In any case, the
name is a canditate for a nomen inversum as well as
a nomen mutatum (L u z u l o l uz ul o i di s-Q uerce-
t u m p e t r a e a e nom. invers. et mut. prop.).
Hilitzer’s name was hardly recognized by the
time of its publication. Instead, the name Gen isto
t i n c t o r i a e - Q ue rc e tum pe tra e a e Klika 1932:
335 (original form: asociace Quercus sessiliflora-
Genista tinctoria; Typus: Klika l.c. Tab. p. 336/337,
rel. 2, Lectotypus Pallas 1996: 57) was frequently
used for the same plant community. Klika (l.c.: 334)
identified his association (for which he created sev-
eral illegitimate alternative names) with the Q u erce-
t um m e d io e u rop a e um Braun-Blanquet 1932
nom. illeg. (Art. 34), a community type dominated
by Quercus robur rather than by Quercus petraea. In
eschweizerbart_xxx
W. Willner et al.
the table, which contains eight relevés, Klika did not
distinguish between the two oak species.
Knapp (1942: 51) established the name “Querce-
to-Luzuletu m n emo ro sae” (not effectively pub-
lished and without sufficient original diagnosis, Art.
1 & 7), most propably without knowing the earlier
name of Hilitzer. In this broad association concept,
he included not only the acidophilous oak forests of
most parts of Central Europe but also acidophytic
beech forests. Knapp published the name Luzulo
nemo ro sae-Quercetum effectively not earlier
than 1948 (Knapp 1948: 61), but again invalidly, giv-
ing the constancy of only three species (Art. 7).
The name Lu zulo-Quercetum Passarge 1953
(Neotypus Pallas 2002: 151) referred to Knapp and
not to Hilitzer’s name which was unknown to Pas-
sarge in 1953 (pers. comm. Passarge to J. Pallas in
1996, see also reference to Knapp 1948 in Passarge
1953: 551). Oberdorfer followed the concept of
Knapp as well in the early years. His Quer ceto-
Luzuletu m collinu m (1952: 26) was later incor-
porated into the M elampy ro -F agetu m Ober-
dorfer 1957: 490 (Lectotypus Willner 2002: 409).
Confusion might have been caused by R. & Z. Neu-
häusl (1967) who knew Hilitzer’s diagnosis and
tried to force it into one association with Luzulo-
Qu ercetum Passarge 1953. However, the diagnosis
of Passarge is not “too narrow” (“zu eng gefaßt”, R.
& Z. Neuhäusl 1967: 10), but simply refers to a dif-
ferent woodland type than Hilitzer’s.
Oberdorfer (in litt.) argues that the name Luzu-
lo -Quercetum has become ambiguous since it was
used for communities which, according to recent syn-
taxonomic concepts, belong to different associations.
He therefore suggests to reject the name as nomen
ambiguum. However, all synoptic treatments of the
past 20 years (Pallas 1996: 53 with details, Härdtle
et al. 1997, Moravec 1998, Willner & Grabherr
2007) use Hilitzer’s name in the correct sense. The
original diagnosis of the name Gen isto tinctori-
ae-Quercetum p etraeae Klika 1932, on the other
hand, is unclear and may not even belong to the same
association as Hilitzer’s name. Considering these
facts, the Committee does not recommend the rejec-
tion of the name L u zulo-Quercetum sessilis.
Votes: 0 pro, 4 contra (not recommended).
(2) To mutate the name Stipetalia calamagros-
tis Oberd. & Seibert 1977 to Achn ather etalia
calamagro stis nom. mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Izco (see Rivas-Martínez et al. 2002:
247).
Stipetalia calamagro stis Oberdorfer & Seibert
in Oberdorfer 1977, Süddeutsche Pflanzenges. 1: 59.
– Typus: Stip ion calamagrostis Jenny-Lips ex
Seibert in Oberdorfer 1977 (≡ Stipion calamagro-
stis Jenny-Lips ex Braun-Blanquet 1948: 38) .
The order Stip etalia calamagrostis includes
thermophilous calcareous scree communities in Eu-
rope. The alliance Stip ion calamagro stis was es-
Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and Mutata: 1
tablished by Jenny-Lips (1930) together with a valid-
ly published association S ti pe tum c a l a m a g ro stis
Jenny-Lips 1930. Unfortunately, he published the
name of the alliance provisionally, therefore the name
S tip i o n c a la m ag rosti s Jenny-Lips 1930 is invalid
(Art. 3b). Rivas-Martínez et al. (2002) suggest that
the name was validated by Braun-Blanquet et al.
(1952). This conclusion is challanged by the fact that
Braun-Blanquet (1948: 38) already published the
name S t i p io n c a l a m a g ro sti s as definitely accept-
ed. But then, the latter work, which was published in
several parts (with the references in the last one), has
repeatedly raised doubts concerning the requirement
of Art. 2b.
The name-giving Stipa calamagrostis (L.) Wahlenb.
is treated as Achnatherum calamagrostis (L.) P. Beauv.
in most floras and check-lists of the last decades (e.g.
Ehrendorfer 1973, Tutin et al. 1980). This is a good
example for a change of a species name due to a new
delimitation of genera. The genus Achnatherum has
been included in Stipa in the past, and Hegi’s Flora
of Central Europe still follows this concept (Con-
ert 1998: 404). While some members of the Com-
mittee argued that the majority of authors should be
followed in this case, others emphasised that the 3rd
edition of Hegi’s Flora is too an important work to
be ignored.
Votes: 2 pro, 2 contra (not recommended).
(3 – 4) To mutate the names Ca ri c i o n fu sc a e Koch
1926 and C a r i c eta l i a fusc a e Koch 1926 to C ari-
c i o n n i g r a e nom. mut. prop. and Ca ri c e ta l ia n i-
g r a e nom. mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Izco (see Rivas-Martínez et al. 2002:
253f).
C a r ic i o n f u s c ae Koch 1926: 20, 65. – Typus: Car-
i c e t u m f u s c a e Koch 1926 (Lectotypus Art. 20).
C a r ic e t a l ia f u s c a e Koch 1926: 20, 67. – Typus:
C a r ic i o n f u s c ae Koch 1926 (Lectotypus Art. 20).
The name C a r i ce ta l i a fusc a e is usually used for
mire communities on acidic soils (Steiner 1993,
Rodwell et al. 2002). It was established by Koch
(1926) in his seminal work on the plant communi-
ties of northeastern Switzerland. However, Koch
used this name in a rather broad sense, including
vegetation units today classified within several (usu-
ally three) orders. In the original diagnosis, the or-
der comprised two alliances: Ca ri c i o n fusc ae and
R h y n c h o s p o r i on a l b a e . According to Art. 20,
the first is the lectotypus of the order. Koch (l.c.: 66)
enumerates six associations for Ca ri c i o n fuscae of
which only one, Ca ri c e tum fusc a e , is retained as
part of the alliance in recent syntaxonomical schemes
while the other associations are usually classified
within C a r ic i o n da v a l l i a n a e Klika 1934 and Ca-
r i c i o n la s io c a rpa e Vanden Bergen 1949 (see e.g.
Steiner 1993). The nomenclature of the association
C a r ic e t u m f u s c a e Koch 1926 is discussed in detail
by Dengler et al. (2004: 360). They come to the con-
clusion that the type relevé of Ca ri c e tum fuscae
eschweizerbart_xxx
63
Koch 1926 (≡ Caricetum fu scae Beger 1922) does
not belong to the vegetation unit known as Carice-
tu m go o d eno wii Braun 1915 in the literature but
to a community of moderately base-rich mires which
many authors would not even regard as being part of
the alliance Caricio n fu scae. Therefore, the names
Caricetu m fu scae, Caricio n fuscae and C ari-
cetalia fuscae may be candidates for nomina ambi-
gua. Conserving the name Caricetu m fu scae with
a different type could be an option as well. However,
the Committee does not recommend to submit such
a proposal before a large-scale syntaxonomical revi-
sion of the mire communities of Europe has been pre-
sented.
Dengler et al. (2004: 358) also note that accord-
ing to Kiffe (in Wisskirchen & Haeupler 1998:
127) Carex fusca All. is not identical with the Central
European Carex nigra (L.) Reichard. This statement
ascribed to Kiffe cannot be confirmed after the study
of the given reference.
No Votes (not ripe for decision).
(5) To mutate the name Limnanth emetum nym-
p h o idis Bellot 1951 to Nymph o idetum pelta-
tae nom. mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Izco (see Rivas-Martínez et al. 2002:
269) and by J. Dengler (see Berg et al. 2004: 587).
Limn anth emetum n y mph o idis Bellot 1951,
Trab. Jard. Bot., Santiago de Compostela 4: 14. – Ty-
pus: nondum selectus?
This name is used for a community in nutrient-rich
fresh water dominated by Nymphoides peltata (S.G.
Gmel.) O. Kuntze (≡ Limnanthemum nymphoides
(L.) Hoffmanns. & Link). It is mainly distributed in
submediterranean regions. The name-giving species
was originally described as Menyanthes nymphoides
L. but then transfered into a separate genus. Since
the generic name Nymphoides Ség. 1754 has priority
above Limnanthemum Gmel. 1770, the correct name
of the species is Nymphoides peltata.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
(6) To mutate the name Quercion pu b escenti-
sessiliflorae Br.-Bl. 1932 to Qu ercion p ubes-
cen ti-petraeae nom. mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Izco (see Rivas-Martínez et al. 2002:
274).
Quercion pu b escenti-sessiliflo rae Braun-
Blanquet 1932, Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 49, Ergbd.
Drude-Festschr.): 8. – Typus: Querceto-Litho-
sp ermetum Braun-Blanquet 1932, l.c.: 15 (Lectoty-
pus Chytrý 1997, Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 32: 253).
The alliance Qu ercion p u b escenti-sessiliflo-
rae includes thermophilous oak forests of Central
and Southern Europe. The name-giving species are
Quercus pubescens Willd. and Q. sessiliflora Salisb.,
the latter being a nom. illeg. Since many decades, all
floras use the correct name Q. petraea.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
64
(7) To mutate the name Ag ro py ro-Mi nu artio n
p e p l o id i s Br.-Bl. & Tx. 1952 to Ag rop yro - Hon -
c k e n y io n p e pl o i di s nom. mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Dengler (see Berg et al. 2004: 587).
A g r o p y r o - M inu a rti o n pe pl o i di s Braun-Blan-
quet & Tüxen 1952: 248. – Typus: E u ph orb io-Ag-
r o p y r e t u m j un c e i Braun-Blanquet & Tüxen 1952:
248 (Holotypus).
This alliance was described for the pioneer vegetation
on coastal foredunes of the European Atlantic coast.
The original diagnosis contains only one association
which is therefore the holotypus of the alliance name.
Braun-Blanquet & Tüxen (1952) published the as-
sociation and the alliance name with the author ci-
tation “Tx. 1945 mskr.”, indicating that both names
had already been ineffectively published by Tüxen
in 1945 (Art. 1). The quotation of Tüxen with the
word “ex” is not necessary in this case (Rec. 46D).
The name-giving species are Agropyron junceum
(L.) P. Beauv. and Minuartia peploides (L.) Hiern (≡
Honckenya peploides (L.) Ehrh.). The rather narrow-
ly defined genus Honckenya Ehrh. (only two species
worldwide) is accepted by most (if not all) recent
floras.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
(8) To mutate the name Co nv ol v ul e ta l i a s ep ium
Tx. 1950 to C a l yste g i e ta l i a se pi u m nom. mut.
prop.
Proposed by J. Izco (see Rivas-Martínez et al. 2002:
252) and by J. Dengler (see Berg et al. 2004: 587).
C o n v o l v u le t a l i a se pi u m Tüxen 1950: 161 (nom.
illeg., Art. 29b). – Typus: S e ne c i o ni o n fl uviatilis
Tüxen 1950: 162 (nom. illeg., Art. 29b) (Lectotypus
Mucina 1993, Die Pflanzenges. Österr. I: 231).
The name C o nv ol v ul e ta l i a se pi u m is usually
used for semi-natural plant communities of tall per-
ennial herbs on banks of rivers and other water bodies
of temperate Europe. The name-giving Convolvulus
sepium L. is now classified as Calystegia sepium (L.)
R. Br. by most floras. The order Con v o l v u letalia
s e p iu m was established by Tüxen (1950: 161) who
included two alliances within this order: Con vol-
v u l o - A r c h a n ge l i c i on l i to ra l i s “Tx. 1950 prov.”
(nom. inval., Art. 3b) and S e n e c i on i on fl uviatilis
“Tx. (1947) 1950”. For the latter, two synonyms are
given: C a l y s t e g i on se p i i Tx. 1947, and Convol-
v u li o n s e p ii Oberdorfer 1949.
The alliance Ca l y ste g i on se pi i Tüxen 1947: 276
was published with two simultaneously described
associations included in the original diagnosis: (1)
“Convolvulus sepium-Cuscuta europea-Ass.”, and (2)
“Petasites hybridus-Aegopodium podagraria-Ass.”.
For the first, Tüxen published a single relevé which
should be the holotypus of the association name.
However, only one of the two name-giving species
(Convolvulus sepium) is present in the relevé whereas
Cuscuta europea is only mentioned as being present
in other stands of the same community (Tüxen 1947:
eschweizerbart_xxx
W. Willner et al.
130). Therefore, the “Convolvulus sepium-Cuscuta
europea-Ass.” is invalidly published according to
Art. 3f. The description of the second association is
accompanied by a table containing two relevés. Both
name-giving species of the association (Petasites hy-
bridus and Aegopodium podagraria) are present in
the table, whereas the name-giving species of the al-
liance (Convolvulus sepium ≡ Calystegia sepium) is
not (which is, however, not necessary for the valid
publication of the association). Dengler et al. (2003:
615) argue that the alliance Caly stegion sepii
Tüxen 1947 is validly published because the original
diagnosis of the invalid association name (which con-
tains the name-giving species of the alliance) is nev-
ertheless part of the original diagnosis of the alliance,
and therefore the requirement of Art. 3f is fulfilled;
however, as the only validly published association,
the “Petasites hybridus-Aegopodium podagraria-
Ass.” is the holotype of the alliance. Furthermore,
Dengler et al. (l.c.) argue that “the relevés are not
the original diagnosis itself but only form part of it”.
We do not agree with this point of view. In our opin-
ion, the relevés are the only part of the original diag-
nosis which is relevant for nomenclatural questions.
The diagnosis of an invalid association name must
be treated as not published (see Def. IV). Therefore,
the “Convolvulus sepium-Cuscuta europea-Ass.” as
well as the alliance Caly stegion sepii are inval-
idly published. The name “Senecion flu via tilis “
(recte: Sen ecion ion fluviatilis) is mentioned in
Tüxen (1947: 152) but it is not clear whether this is
considered as synonym of the alliance Calystegion
sepii or as a separate alliance. Therefore, the name
Senecion ion fluviatilis Tüxen 1947 is a nomen
nudum and not validly published either. The name
Con volvu lio n sep ii Oberdorfer 1949 is also a no-
men nudum because no associations are given for the
alliance (Oberdorfer 1949: 14).
In Tüxen (1950), seven associations are included
in the alliance Senecion ion flu viatilis: (1) “Con-
volvulus sepium-Cuscuta europea-Ass. Tx. 1947”
(nom. inval., see above), (2) “Aster salignus-Angelica
archangelica-Ass. Tx. et Firbas 1950 (prov.)” (nom.
inval., Art. 3b), (3) “Achillea cartilaginea-Cuscuta
lupuliformis-Ass. (Hueck 1930) Tx. 1950“, (4) “Cus-
cuta Gronovii-Brassica nigra-Ass. Volk 1950 prov.”
(nom. inval., Art. 3b), (5) “Convolvulus sepium-
Asperula aparine-Ass. (Steffen 1931) Tx. 1950”, (6)
“Senecio fluviatilis-Galega officinalis-Ass. (Gogela
1910) Tx. 1950 prov.” (nom. inval., Art. 3b), and (7)
“Rudbeckia laciniata-Solidago canadensis-Ass. Tx. et
Raabe 1950 prov.” (nom. inval., Art. 3b). The valid-
ity of associations 3 and 5 may be questioned in the
light of Art. 2b: The paper of Tüxen (1950) lacks any
bibliography. There is only a general remark on page
96 that most papers can be found in the Bibliographia
Phytosociologica (a bibliographic series published
by Tüxen), in the bibliography of phytosociological
textbooks and in the journal Vegetatio. If we follow
a strict interpretation of Art. 2b, the name Sene-
cio n ion fluviatilis Tüxen 1950 can not be con-
Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and Mutata: 1
sidered as validly published, and the same applies to
the order C o n v o l v ul e ta l i a se pi u m . On the other
hand, if we accept the rather detailed references given
by Tüxen as sufficient (author and year, study area,
original name of the association, number of relevés),
then the name S e n e c i o ni o n fl uv i a ti l i s is valid but
illegitimate: The diagnoses of associations 3 and 5 re-
fer without exception to shrub and forest communi-
ties dominated by Salix and Populus species. Tüxen’s
intention was to disentangle the herbaceous curtain
(“Schleier-Gesellschaft”) from the woody component
of alluvial shrubs, considering the published relevés
as a complex of two different communities. Howev-
er, the cited diagnoses (e.g. S a l i c e tu m Steffen 1931)
clearly represent woody communities. Therefore, the
new association names are illegitimate according to
Art. 29b, and so are the names S e n e c i on i on flu -
v i a t i li s and C o nv ol v ul e ta l i a se p i um .
Given that the names published by Tüxen (1950)
are considered as invalid, the names Co nv ol v uleta-
l i a s e p iu m and S e n e c i on i on fl uv i a ti l i s are not
validated by Moor (1958) as was supposed by Berg
et al. (2004). Moor included two associations in the
alliance S e n e c i o n i on fl u v i a ti l i s: Im pa tienti-
S o li d a g in e t u m Moor 1958, and Cu sc u to-Co n -
v o lv u l e t u m “Tx. 1947”. The latter association is
validated by Moor (1958) but Senecio fluviatilis is
neither indicated in the relevés of these two associa-
tions nor in any other part of the original diagnosis.
Therefore, the alliance is invalid according to Art. 3f
in Moor’s paper, and the order Con v o l v u l etalia
s e p iu m includes no validly published alliance (Art.
8).
No Votes (nomenclature in need of revision).
(9) To mutate the name S ta ti c e tu m l i m on iae
Christiansen 1927 to L i m on i e tu m v ul g a ri s nom.
mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Dengler (see Berg et al. 2004: 587).
S ta t ic e t u m li mon i a e Christiansen 1927, Föhrer
Heimatbücher 16: 38. – Typus: nondum selectus?
This name is used for a temperate European salt
marsh community dominated by Limonium vulgare
Mill. (≡ Statice limonium L.). The genus name Statice
L. (Typus: Statice armeria L.) is rejected as homotypic
synonym of Armeria Willd. nom. cons. (ICBN, App.
III). Therefore, the correct name of the name-giving
species is Limonium vulgare. Other syntaxa names
based on this species (e.g. Cri th m o -S ta ticetea
Br.-Bl. 1952) should be mutated as well.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
(10 – 11) To mutate the names Fe stu c i o n mar-
i t i m a e Christiansen 1927 and Fe stu c e tum mar-
i t i m a e Christiansen 1927 to Pu c c i ne l l i on mar-
i t i m a e nom. mut. prop. and Puc c i n e l l ietum
m a r i t im a e nom. mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Dengler (see Dengler et al. 2004:
372).
eschweizerbart_xxx
65
F estucio n maritimae Christiansen 1927, Föhrer
Heimatbücher 16: 27. – Typus: F estu cetu m mar-
itimae Christiansen 1927 (Lectotypus Art. 20).
F estucetu m maritimae Christiansen 1927, l.c.:
32. – Typus: Relevé on p. 32 (Holotypus).
The alliance F estu cio n maritimae was established
for coastal salt marsh communities of temperate Eu-
rope. The name-giving species is Festuca maritima
(Huds.) Koch (≡ Puccinellia maritima (Huds.) Parl.).
The name Festuca maritima (Huds.) Koch has been
rejected as a later homonym of F. maritima L., there-
fore Art. 44 applies. The first choice of a non-hom-
onymous taxon name for both the alliance and the
association name seems to be Puccinellia maritima.
Thus, the correct names of the alliance and the asso-
ciation are P uccinellio n maritimae Christiansen
1927 nom. corr., and P u ccinellietum marit imae
Christiansen 1927 nom. corr., respectively. No muta-
tion is necessary.
Votes: 0 pro, 4 contra (unnecessary).
(12 – 14) To mutate the names Sph agn etalia medii
Kästner & Flößner 1933, Sp h agn ion med ii Käst-
ner & Flößner 1933, and Sp h agn etum medii Käst-
ner & Flößner 1933 to Sph agn etalia magellanici
nom. mut. prop., Sp h agn ion magellanici nom.
mut. prop., and Sph agn etum magellan ici nom.
mut. prop.
Proposed by J. Dengler (see Berg et al. 2004: 587).
Sph agn etalia medii Kästner & Flößner 1933, Ver-
öff. Landesver. Sächs. Heimatschutz 4: 16. – Typus:
Sph agn ion med ii Kästner & Flößner 1933 (Ho-
lotypus).
Sp h agn ion med ii Kästner & Flößner 1933, l.c.: 16,
74. – Typus: Sp h agn etum med ii Kästner & Flöß-
ner 1933 (Lectotypus Art. 20).
Sp h agn etum medii Kästner & Flößner 1933, l.c.:
81. – Typus: Table 14: 1 (Lectotypus Steiner 1992:
321).
The order Sph agn etalia med ii includes bog
communities of sub-continental regions of Europe.
Sphagnum medium Limpr. 1881 is a later synonym
of S. magellanicum Brid. 1797. However, the names
Sp h agn etalia medii, Sph agn ion med ii, and
Sp h agn etum med ii are all illegitimate according
to Art. 29b since the name-giving moss species does
not belong to the highest of the dominant strata de-
termining the structure of the vegetation. In the orig-
inal diagnosis (Kästner & Flössner 1933: Table
14), tall grasses (Eriophorum vaginatum) and dwarf
shrubs (Calluna vulgaris, Empetrum nigrum etc.)
reach cover values > 25%. Therefore, the names pub-
lished by Kästner & Flössner are not acceptable
as correct names.
No Votes (nomenclature in need of revision).
(15) To mutate the name Hord eetu m nodosi
Krisch 1974 to Hord eetu m secalin i nom. mut.
prop.
66
Proposed by J. Dengler (see Berg et al. 2004: 587).
H o r d e e t u m no do si Krisch 1974, Feddes Repert.
85: 131. – Typus: nondum selectus?
This is another community of coastal salt marshes of
temperate Europe. Krisch (l.c.) used the taxon name
Hordeum nodosum L. but the nomenclatural type of
this name belongs to H. bulbosum L. (Baum & Jarvis
1985: 531). The correct name of the name-giving tax-
on of this association is H. secalinum Schreb. There-
fore, Krisch used the name Hordeum nodosum in a
sense that is not in accordance with the nomenclatural
type of the taxon name, and Art. 43 must be applied.
Votes: 0 pro, 4 contra (unnecessary).
(16) To reject the name L a ri c e tum d e c i duae Bo-
jko 1931 nom. amb. prop.
Proposed by W. Willner (see Willner & Grab-
herr 2007: 241).
L a r i c e t u m d ec i du a e Bojko 1931: 128. – Typus:
Table on p. 132., col. 2 = rel. no. 17 (Lectotypus
Willner & Grabherr 2007: 241).
On steep, calcareous rocks in the subalpine belt of
the Alps, European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) forms
± monodominant stands with a rather open cano-
py. Zukrigl (1973) described this community type
in detail and proposed for it the provisional name
R h o d o t h a m n o-L a ri c e tum (nom. inval., Art. 3b).
Wallnöfer (1993, Die Pflanzenges. Österr. III: 272)
used the name L a ri c e tum de c i d ua e Bojko 1931
for this association. However, the original diagnosis
of this name consists of two relevés which were taken
mostly on non-calcareous bedrock (one relevé rep-
resents a mixture of calcareous and non-calcareous
bedrock). The type-relevé chosen by Willner &
Grabherr (2007) clearly represents an acidic for-
est community. It was assigned to the association
Va c c in i o - P in e tu m c e m b ra e (Pallmann & Haf-
fter 1933) Oberd. 1962 (≡ L a ri c i -Pi ne tum cem-
b r a e Ellenberg 1963) by Karner (in Willner &
Grabherr 2007: 216). Therefore, Wallnöfer used
the name L a r i ce tu m de c i d ua e in a sense that ex-
cludes its (later selected) nomenclatural type. The
name R h o d o t ha m n o-L a ri c e tum was validated
by Willner & Zukrigl (1999: 154) and has to be
used as correct name of the calcareous larch forests
community. The re-introduction of the name Lari-
c e t u m d e c i d ua e in its original sense (i.e. as the cor-
rect name of the acidic forest community Va ccinio-
P i n e t u m c e m b ra e ) would be a source of confusion
and continual errors.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
(17) To conserve the name B e rb e ri d i on Br.-Bl. ex
Tx. 1952 nom. cons. propos.
Proposed by W. Willner (see Willner & Grab-
herr 2007: 224).
B e r b e r i d io n Braun-Blanquet ex Tüxen 1952: 96.
– Typus: P r u no -L i g u stre tu m Tüxen 1952: 101
(Lectotypus Willner & Grabherr 2007: 224).
eschweizerbart_xxx
W. Willner et al.
Under the name Berb erid ion , thermophilous shrub
communities of submediterranean and temperate Eu-
rope are subsumed. The alliance was established by
Braun-Blanquet (1950: 349) who included two
associations in the original diagnosis: “Rosetum
rhamn o su m” nom. inval. (Art. 2b, 3e), and “C ory-
leto-P op u letu m” (recte: Cory lo-P op u letum).
The latter bears a reference to the name Cory letum
Beger 1922: 81. Beger (l.c.) published under this
name a species list with quantitative indications for
only a few species. Neither for Populus tremula nor
for Berberis vulgaris, a quantitative value is given.
This is certainly a borderline case of a valid diagnosis,
but since both species are indicated in Beger’s relevé,
the names Berberid ion and Cory lo-P op u letum
seem to be validly published (see Art. 3f). The name
Cory lo-P op u letu m Br.-Bl. 1950 is an illegitimate
nomen superfluum and automatically typified by the
earlier legitimate name of Beger (Art. 18b, see also
Weber 1999: 16). Being the only valid association
in the original diagnosis, the Cory lo-P op u letum
Br.-Bl. 1950 (≡ Co ry letum Beger 1922) is the no-
menclatural type of the name Berberid ion Br.-Bl.
1950. However, some years later, Braun-Blanquet
(1961: 68) split the alliance into two: The Corylo-
P op u letu m nom. illeg. was classified within a new
alliance Co ry lo-P op u lio n Br.-Bl. 1961 while the
“Rosetum rhamn o su m” (under the new name
Berberid o -Ro setum Br.-Bl. 1961: 189) remained
in the alliance Berb erid ion . Obviously, Braun-
Blanquet regarded the Berb erid o -Ro set um as
“typical core” of the Berb erid ion , but since this
association was not validly published in 1950, it is
not available as formal type of the alliance name.
The alliance Cory lo-P op u lio n is accepted in sev-
eral recent surveys (e.g. Rivas-Martínez et al. 1999,
Willner & Grabherr 2007). According to a strict
application of the Code, the name Berb erid ion had
to be adopted for the latter alliance while the larger
part of the Berb erid ion s.lat. would need a new
name. To avoid such an inappropriate change of com-
monly used names, the conservation of a later pub-
lication of the name Berberid ion together with a
different type is proposed:
The next author who used the name Berb er idion
was Tüxen (1952). Together with the alliances Ru-
bion sub atlanticu m nom. illeg., P ru n ion fruti-
co sae Tx. 1952, and Salicio n arenariae nom. in-
val. (Art. 2b), he included the alliance Berb er idion
in a new order P ru n etalia spino sae Tx. 52. We-
ber (1990: 106) selected the Berberid ion as lectoty-
pus of the order name. Willner & Grabherr (2007:
224) proposed to conserve the name Berb er idion
Br.-Bl. ex Tx. 1952 with the simultaneously published
association P ru n o -Ligustretum Tx. 1952 as lec-
totypus. This association is the central association
of the alliance (in the sense of Dierschke 1988) and
has been unanimously included in the alliance Ber-
b erid ion since its first publication in 1952.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and Mutata: 1
(18) To conserve the name Aspe rul o -Fa g etu m
Sougnez & Thill 1959 against D e n ta ri o b ulb if-
e r a e - F a g e t u m Hartmann 1953 and Fe stuco al-
t i s s im a e - F a g e t um Schlüter 1957, and to mutate
it to G a l io o d o ra ti -Fa g e tum nom. cons. et mut.
propos.
Proposed by W. Willner (see Willner & Grab-
herr 2007: 233).
A s p e r u lo - F a g e tu m Sougnez & Thill 1959: 36. –
Typus: Sougnez & Thill 1959: 37, Rel. 42a. (Lecto-
typus Dierschke 1989: 134).
The beech forest community on loamy, often mod-
erately acidic soils of Central Europe is known as
A s p e r u l o - F a g etum or G a l i o o do ra ti -F age-
t u m (Dierschke 1989, Müller in Oberdorfer
1992, Willner 2002). The first author who distin-
guished this forest type as separate association seems
to be Hartmann (1953). He divided the Fa getum
b o r e o a t la n t i c um Tüxen 1937 nom. illeg. into
three associations: (1) L uz ul o -Fa g e tum nom. il-
leg. (later homonym of L u z u l o-Fa g e tu m Meusel
1937): species poor, acidic beech forests; (2) Den-
t a r io b u l b if e r ae -Fa g e tu m : species rich, moder-
ately acidic beech forests; and (3) L a th yro vern i-
F a g e t u m nom. inval. (Art. 3b): basiphilous beech
forests. Hartmann distinguished five subassocia-
tions within the new association D e n ta ri o bulbif-
e r a e - F a g e t u m . One of them was named as “typical
subassociation”. According to Art. 19, the nomen-
clatural type of the association name must be chosen
from this subassociation. Among others, Hartmann
cited the following sources in the protologue of the
“typical subassociation” (Hartmann l.c., appendix
p. VI): F a g e t u m bo re o a tl a nti c um dry opteri-
d e t o s u m l in n a e a n a e Tüxen 1937, Fa getu m
c a r d a m in e t o s um bu l bi fe ra e Büker 1942. Since
Tüxen (1937) only published a synoptic table, a rele-
vé from Büker (l.c.) is chosen as lectotypus for the
association name (see below).
A few years later, Schlüter (in Grüneberg
& Schlüter 1957: 894) described the association
F e s t u c o a l t is s i m a e -Fa g e tum , giving the name
Fagetum b o r e oa tl a n ti c u m fe stuc e tosu m
s y l v a t ic a e Tx. 1937 in the synonymy. However,
in the following years only the association L u zulo-
F a g e t u m was generally accepted while for the rest
of the old F a g e t um b ore oa tl a n ti c u m , the name
M e l ic o - F a g e t u m became commonly used (see be-
low). In a revision of the beech forest communities
of southern and north-western Germany, Müller
(1989) and Dierschke (1989) adopted the name As-
p e r u l o - F a g e t u m Sougnez & Thill 1959 (in the mu-
tated form G a l io o do ra ti -Fa g e tu m ) for the com-
munity on moderately acidic soils, and this name has
been commonly used for the last two decades (e.g.
Müller in Oberdorfer 1992, Mucina et al. 1993,
Willner & Grabherr 2007). The re-introduction
of the earliest valid name for this community, i.e.
D e n t a r io b u l bi fe ra e -Fa g e tum Hartmann 1953,
would clearly contradict the intention of the Code
eschweizerbart_xxx
67
to promote stability. Therefore, it was proposed to
conserve the name Asp erulo-F agetu m Sougnez
& Thill 1959 against the earlier synonyms Den tario
b u lbiferae-F agetu m Hartmann 1953 and Fes-
tu co altissimae-F agetum Schlüter 1957, and at
the same time to adapt the name to the contempo-
rary taxonomic literature by mutating it to Galio
od o rati-F agetu m. The name Asperula odorata L.
is no longer in use since the species has been treated
as Galium odoratum (L.) Scop. in all floras of Europe
for more than 20 years.
The name M elico-F agetu m is not threatening
the proposed nomen conservandum as will be shown
in the following. The idea of M elico-F agetu m was
already introduced in Tüxen (1954) where he split
his F agetum b o reoatlanticu m into two asso-
ciations. For the acidophilous beech forests (Fage-
tum bo reoatlanticu m lu zuleto su m Tx. 1937),
he accepted the name Luzulo-F agetu m Meusel
1937. However, for the remaining part of the Fage-
tu m b o reoatlanticu m, he used the invalid name
“Melica-Buchenwald”. In a footnote on p. 467, he
remarked: “Due to the raising of Lu zulo-F agetum
to the rank of a separate association, a new name for
the species-rich beech forests is necessary. How-
ever, in order to prevent a prejudgement of ongoing
works, we used the provisional name Melica-Buch-
enwald” (translated from German). In the same year,
Seibert (1954) used the name M elico-F agetum
for a single relevé, but since he suggested this name
as being provisional, this was not a valid publication
(Art. 3b). Tüxen (1955) published a list of the plant
communities of north-western Germany, giving the
synonyms of his survey from 1937 in brackets (see
Tüxen l.c.: 162). Three beech forest communities are
listed in the paper: (1) “Luzulo-F agetu m [without
author citation] (F agetu m bo reoatlanticu m lu-
zuleto su m)”; (2) “M elico-F agetu m Lohm. apud
Seibert 1954 (F agetum bo reoatlanticu m p.p.)”;
and (3) “Cariceto-F agetu m [without author cita-
tion and without synonym]”. The last name refers
to the association Carici-F agetum Moor 1952
which had been reported from north-western Ger-
many by Lohmeyer (1953). No synonym is given for
this community because it had not been recognized
in 1937. The name M elico -F agetu m is clearly a
substitute for the name F agetum bo reoatlanti-
cu m Tx. 1937 (excluding the subassociation luzu-
letosu m). Curiously, Tüxen attributed the name to
“Lohmeyer apud Seibert 1954”. Seibert mentioned
the name M elico-F agetu m in several publications
in 1954 (without describing it validly), but in none of
them the name was attributed to Lohmeyer. There-
fore, Tüxen’s diagnosis is rather a nomen novum (Art.
39) for his own name F agetum bo reoatlanticum
than a validation of Seibert’s provisional descrip-
tion of 1954, and the correct author citation should
be M elico -F agetu m Tüxen (1937) 1955. The no-
menclatural type of the replaced name is chosen from
the subassocation F agetum b o reoatlanticum
ely meto su m Tx. 1937 which, according to recent
68
syntaxonomical schemes, belongs to the basiphilous
association M e rc u ri a l i -Fa g e tu m Scamoni 1935
(= H o r d e l y m o -Fa g e tum Kuhn 1937 = Lath y -
r o - F a g e t u m Hartmann ex Müller 1966). The single
relevé published by Seibert (1954) belongs to the
same association.
The acceptance of this proposal would not pre-
clude authors from adopting the names D e n tario
b u l b if e r a e - F ag e tu m Hartmann 1953 and F es-
t u c o a lt i s s im a e -Fa g e tu m Schlüter 1957 as cor-
rect names of beech forest communities if they con-
sider them as belonging to associations different from
G a li o o d o r a t i-Fa g e tum .
Typifications:
F a g e t u m b o re o a tl a nti c um Tüxen 1937: 139. –
Neotypus Willner hoc loco: Diemont 1938, Tab. 2:
11, Ith NW Lauenstein, Kreis Holzminden.
F a g e t u m b o r e o a tl a nti c um e l ym e to sum Tüx-
en 1937: 140. – Neotypus Willner hoc loco: Typus of
the association.
D e n t a r i o b u lb i fe ra e -Fa g e tu m Hartmann 1953:
160 & app. VI. – Lectotypus Willner hoc loco: Büker
1942, Tab. 21: 4.
M e l ic o - F a g e tu m Tüxen (1937) 1955: 176 ≡ F age-
t u m b o r e o a t la nti c um Tüxen 1937.
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (recommended).
(19) To conserve the name And rom e d o tetrago-
n a e - H y lo c o m i e tum [proliferi] Fries 1913, and to
mutate and invert it to H yl o c o m i o spl e nd entis-
C a s s i o p e t u m te tra g o na e nom. cons., mut. et in-
vers. propos.
Proposed by B. Sieg, B. Drees & F. J. A. Daniёls
(see Sieg et al. 2006: 16).
Andromeda tetragona-Hylocomium-Ass. Fries 1913:
90. – Typus: Fries 1913, single relevé p. 90/91 (Ho-
lotypus).
The association comprises dwarf shrub heathlands on
acidic soil dominated by Cassiope tetragona. It oc-
curs in the alpine belt of boreal areas, but it is mainly
distributed in the northern Low-Arctic and south-
ern High-Arctic. It is usually assigned to the alliance
P h y l lo d o c o - Va c c i ni o n Nordhagen 1936 within
the class Lo i s e l e uri o -Va c c i n i e te a Eggler 1952.
According to Principle II of the Code, “associa-
tion names” of the Uppsala School published before
1.1.1936 are not subject to the regulations of the
Code, as they correspond in reality to “sociations”,
but may be proposed as nomina conservanda. How-
ever, it is somewhat ambiguous whether the associa-
tion names of Fries (1913) are to be treated as names
of the Uppsala School in the sense of Principle II or
not. In the first years after the starting point (1910) of
the Code, differences between the Zürich-Montpelli-
er-School and the Uppsala School are, if visible at all,
not obvious and not substancial (see, e.g., Fries 1913:
47 – 50 for remarks on his methods and his reference
to the association concept of the Botanical Congress
in Bruxelles 1910). The Committee concludes that, all
other requirements fulfilled, names which do not un-
eschweizerbart_xxx
W. Willner et al.
ambiguously belong to the Uppsala School should be
treated as validly published. Therefore, a conserva-
tion according to Art. 52 is not necessary in this case.
Andromeda tetragona L. is now treated as Cassiope
tetragona (L.) D. Don (Tutin et al. 1972). The name
Hylocomium proliferum (L.) Lindb., which is the
only Hylocomium species in the original diagnosis,
is rejected as nom. illeg., and the correct name of the
species is Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) Schimp.
Since the dwarf shrub Cassiope tetragona belongs
to the highest stratum determining the structure, the
name must be inverted according to Art. 42.
Note: Fries (1913: footnote on p. 49/50) used two
different denomination concepts for his associations,
one with German words within the names and, as
“synonyms”, one “in accordance with the terminol-
ogy of Kerner (1863)”. For the latter ones he often
used association names derived from scientific plant
names in accordance with the Code. These “syno-
myms” in the sense of Fries (1913: 50) are not syn-
onyms in the sense of Def. X of the Code, because a
synonym can only occur in connection with a given
validly published name. However, the association
names containing German words are invalidly pub-
lished according to Art. 2c and to be treated as not
published at all according to Def. IV. Therefore, the
association names of Fries formed from scientific
plant names are no synomyms in the sense of Art. 3a,
but the only validly published names for the associa-
tions according to Art. 3c Note and Expl. 2.
The occurrence of Calamagrostis lapponica in a
higher stratum (10 – 30 cm, Fries 1913: 49) than the
other vascular plants (3 – 10 cm) does not make the
association name illegitimate according to Art. 29b
because Calamagrostis is very scattered (cover degree
only 1, “vereinzelt”) and far from forming a “domi-
nant stratum” (> 25%, see Art. 29b).
Votes: 4 pro, 0 contra (mutation and inversion rec-
ommended, conservation unnecessary).
Concluding remarks
To accelerate the decision process of the Nomen-
clature Commission concerning nomina ambigua,
nomina mutata and nomina conservanda, authors
should submit their proposals in electronical form to
the first author of this report. It is not necessary to
send any supporting documents (e.g. the original di-
agnosis of a name) unless being asked for. The mem-
bers of the Committee will screen the proposals and
may contact the authors if further information is re-
quired. Please consider the proposals included in this
report as guideline on how a proposal should look
like. After discussion of the Committee, proposals
will be published in future reports together with a
recommendation whether they should be accepted or
not. The final decision will be made by the Nomen-
clature Commission. However, we consider it crucial
for the general acceptance of nomina ambigua, nomi-
na mutata and nomina conservanda that all scientists
Report of the Committee for Nomina Conservanda, Ambigua, Inversa and Mutata: 1
interested in the matter should have a fair chance to
be heard. Therefore, opinions on the proposals pub-
lished in the report are welcome. They may be sent to
the first author who will distribute them among the
members of the Nomenclature Commission before
the final decision is made.
References
Baum, B.R. & Jarvis, C.E. (1985): The typification of three Lin-
naean species of Hordeum. – Taxon 34: 528 – 532.
Beger, H.K.E. (1922): Assoziationsstudien in der Waldstufe des
Schanfiggs. – Jahresber. Naturf. Ges. Graubündens 61/62:
1 – 147.
Berg, C., Dengler, J., Abdank, A. & Isermann, M. (ed.) (2004):
Die Pflanzengesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns
und ihre Gefährdung. Textband. – Weissdorn, Jena.
Bojko, H. (1931): Der Wald im Langental (Val lungo). Eine
pflanzensoziologische Studie aus den Dolomiten. – Bot.
Jahrb. Syst. 64: 48 – 164.
Braun-Blanquet, J. (1948): Übersicht der Pflanzengesellschaften
Rätiens (I). – Vegetatio 1: 29 – 41.
Braun-Blanquet, J. (1950): Übersicht der Pflanzengesellschaften
Rätiens (VI). – Vegetatio 2: 341 – 360.
Braun-Blanquet, J. (1961): Die inneralpine Trockenvegetation. –
Geobot. Selecta 1: 1 – 273.
Braun-Blanquet, J., Roussine, N. & Nègre, R. (1952): Les
Groupements Végétaux de la France Méditerranéenne. –
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Montpellier.
Braun-Blanquet, J. & Tüxen, R. (1943): Übersicht der höheren
Vegetationseinheiten Mitteleuropas (unter Ausschluss der
Hochgebirge). – Commun. Stat. Int. Géobot. Médit. Alp.
Montpellier 84: 1 – 11.
Braun-Blanquet, J. & Tüxen, R. (1952): Irische Pflanzengesell-
schaften. – Veröff. Geobot. Inst. Rübel Zürich 25: 224 – 420.
Büker, R. (1942): Beiträge zur Vegetationskunde des südwest-
fälischen Berglandes. – Beih. Bot. Centralbl., Abt. 2, 61:
452 – 558.
Conert, H.J. (ed.) (1998): Gustav Hegi, Illustrierte Flora von
Mitteleuropa, Band I.3., 3. Aufl. – P. Parey, Berlin.
Dengler, J., Berg, C., Eisenberg, M., Isermann, M., Jansen, F.,
Koska, I., Löbel, S., Manthey, M., Päzolt, J., Spangenberg,
A., Timmermann, T. & Wollert, H. (2003): New descriptions
and typifications of syntaxa within the project ‘Plant com-
munities of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and their vulner-
ability’ – Part I. – Feddes Repert. 114: 587 – 631.
Dengler, J., Koska, I., Timmermann, T., Berg, C., Clausnitzer,
U., Isermann, M., Linke, C., Päzolt, J., Polte, T. & Spangen-
berg, A. (2004): New descriptions and typifications of syn-
taxa within the project ‘Plant communities of Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern and their vulnerability’ – Part II. – Feddes
Repert. 115: 343 – 392.
Diemont, W.H. (1938): Zur Soziologie und Synökologie der
Buchen- und Buchenmischwälder der norddeutschen Mit-
telgebirge. – Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. Nieder-
sachsen 4: 1 – 182.
Dierschke, H. (1988): Zur Benennung zentraler Syntaxa ohne
eigene Kenn- und Trennarten. – Tuexenia 8: 381 – 382.
Dierschke, H. (1989): Artenreiche Buchenwald-Gesellschaften
Nordwest-Deutschlands. – Ber. Reinhold-Tüxen-Ges. 1:
107 – 148.
Doing, H. (1962): Systematische Ordnung und floristische
Zusammensetzung niederländischer Wald- und Gebüschge-
sellschaften. – Wentia 8: 1 – 85.
eschweizerbart_xxx
69
Eggler, J. (1952): Übersicht der höheren Vegetationseinheiten
der Ostalpen. – Mitt. Naturwiss. Vereines Steiermark 81/82:
28 – 41.
Ehrendorfer, F. (ed.) (1973): Liste der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleu-
ropas. 2., erw. Aufl. – Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.
Fries, T.C.E. (1913): Botanische Untersuchungen im nörd-
lichsten Schweden. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der alpinen
und subalpinen Vegetation in Torne Lappmark. – 361 pp.,
Almquist & Wiksells, Uppsala.
Grüneberg, H. & Schlüter, H. (1957): Waldgesellschaften
im Thüringischen Schiefergebirge. – Arch. Forstwesen 6:
861 – 932.
Härdtle, W., Heinken, T., Pallas, J. & Welß, W. (1997): Querco-
Fagetea (H5). Sommergrüne Laubwälder. Teil 1: Quercion
roboris. Bodensaure Eichenmischwälder. – In: Dierschke, H.
(ed.), Syn. Pflanzenges. Deutschlands 2: 1 – 51. – Flor.-Soz.
Arbeitsgem., Göttingen.
Hartmann, F.K. (1953): Waldgesellschaften der deutschen
Mittelgebirge und des Hügellandes. – Umschaudienst For-
schungsaussch. „Landschaftspflege und Landschaftsgestal-
tung“ Akad. Raumforsch. Landesplan. (Hannover) 4 – 6:
147 – 182.
Hilitzer, A. (1932): Bory na Horšovotynsku. – Čas. Nár. Mus.,
Odd. Přír. (Prague) 106: 1 – 12.
Jenny-Lips, H. (1930): Vegetationsbedingungen und Pflanzeng-
esellschaften auf Felsschutt. – Beih. Bot. Centralbl., Abt. 2,
46: 119 – 296.
Klika, J. (1932): Lesy v xerothermni oblasti Čech. – Sborn.
Českoslov. Akad. Zeměd. (Prague) 7: 321 – 353.
Klika, J. & Hadač, E. (1944): Rostlinná společenstva Střední Ev-
ropy. – Příroda (Brno) 36 ( 8 – 9): 1 – 26.
Knapp, R. (1942): Zur Systematik der Wälder, Zwergstrauch-
heiden und Trockenrasen des eurosibirischen Vegetation-
skreises. – Arbeiten Zentralstelle Vegetationskart. Reiches,
Beil 12. Rundbr. Zentralstelle: 83 pp. + 35 maps.
Knapp, R. (1948): Die Pflanzengesellschaften Mitteleuropas. –
Einführung in die Pflanzensoziologie 2. – Ulmer, Stuttgart.
94pp.
Koch, W. (1926): Die Vegetationseinheiten der Linthebene. –
Jahrb. St. Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges. 61: 1 – 146.
Lohmeyer, W. (1953): Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Pflanzengesell-
schaften in der Umgebung von Höxter a. d. Weser. – Mitt.
Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. N.F. 4: 59 – 76.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Hawk-
sworth, D.L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D.H., Prado, J., Sil-
va, P.C., Skog, J.E., Wiersema, J.H. & Turland, N.J. (eds.)
(2006): International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vi-
enna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Bo-
tanical Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005. – Gantner, Rug-
gell (Liechtenstein).
Moor, M. (1958): Pflanzengesellschaften schweizerischer
Flußauen. – Mitt. Schweiz. Anst. Forstl. Versuchswesen 34:
221 – 360.
Moravec, J. (1998): Quercetea robori-petraeae. – In: Moravec,
J. (ed.), Přehled vegetace České republiky. Vegetation Survey
of the Czech Republic, Vol. 1: 19 – 62. – Academia, Prague.
Müller, T. (1989): Die artenreichen Rotbuchenwälder Südde-
utschlands. – Ber. Reinhold-Tüxen-Ges. 1: 149 – 163.
Neuhäusl, R. & Neuhäuslová-Novotná, Z. (1967): Syntaxono-
mische Revision der azidophilen Eichen- und Eichenmisch-
wälder im westlichen Teil der Tschechoslowakei. – Folia
Geobot. Phytotax. 2: 1 – 41.
Oberdorfer, E. (1949): Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora
für Südwestdeutschland und die angrenzenden Gebiete. –
Ulmer, Stuttgart.
 70
Oberdorfer, E. (1952): Die Vegetationsgliederung des Kraich-
gaus. – Beitr. Naturk. Forsch. Südwestdeutschl. 11: 12 – 36.
Oberdorfer, E. (1957): Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften.–
Pflanzensoziologie 10. – Gustav Fischer, Jena. 564 pp.
Oberdorfer, E. (ed.) (1992): Süddeutsche Pflanzengesell-
schaften. Teil IV. Wälder und Gebüsche. 2. Aufl. – Gustav
Fischer, Jena.
Oberdorfer, E., Görs, S., Korneck, D., Lohmeyer, W., Müller,
T., Philippi, G. & Seibert, P. (1967): Systematische Übersi-
cht der westdeutschen Phanerogamen- und Gefäßkrypto-
gamen-Gesellschaften. – Schriftenreihe Vegetationsk. (Bad
Godesberg) 2: 7 – 62.
Pallas, J. (1996): Beitrag zur Syntaxonomie und Nomenklatur
der bodensauren Eichenmischwälder in Mitteleuropa. –
Phytocoenologia 26: 1 – 79.
Pallas, J. (1997): Überlegungen zur Logik des Code der Pflan-
zensoziologischen Nomenklatur. – Osnabrück. Naturwiss.
Mitt. 23: 241 – 249.
Pallas, J. (2002): Typisierung und Verbreitung einiger Asso-
ziationen der bodensauren Buchenwälder. – Osnabrück.
Naturwiss. Mitt. 28: 149 – 152.
Passarge, H. (1953): Waldgesellschaften des mitteldeutschen
Trockengebietes. – Arch. Forstwesen 2: 2 – 58, 182 – 208,
340 – 383, 532 – 551.
Rivas-Martínez, S., Fernández-González, F. & Loidi, J. (1999):
Checklist of plant communities of Iberian Peninsula, Balear-
ic and Canary Islands to suballiance level. – Itin. Geobot.
13: 353 – 451.
Rivas-Martínez, S., Díaz, T. E., Fernández-González, F., Izco,
J., Loidi, J., Lousã, M. & Penas, A. (eds.) (2002): Vascular
plant communities of Spain and Portugal. Addenda to the
syntaxonomical checklist of 2001, Part I. – Itin. Geobot. 15:
5 – 432.
Rodwell, J.S., Schamineé, J.H.J., Mucina, L., Pignatti, S., Dring,
J. & Moss, D. (2002): The Diversity of European Vegeta-
tion. An overview of phytosociological alliances and their
relationships to EUNIS habitats. – Report EC-LNV nr.
2002/054, Wageningen.
Seibert, P. (1954): Die Wald- und Forstgesellschaften im Graf
Görtzischen Forstbezirk Schlitz. – Angew. Pflanzensoziol.
(Stolzenau/Weser) 9: 1 – 63.
Sieg, B., Drees, B. & Daniëls, F. J. A. (2006): Vegetation and al-
titudinal zonation in continental West Greenland. – Meddel.
Grønland Biosci. (Copenhagen) 57: 1 – 93.
Sougnez, N. & Thill, A. (1959): Texte explicatif de la planchette
de Grupont. – Carte de la végétation de la Belgique 195 W.
– Centre de Cartographie phytosociologique de Belgique,
Bruxelles.
Steffen, H. (1931): Vegetationskunde von Ostpreußen. – Pflan-
zensoziologie 1. Gustav Fischer, Jena. 406 pp.
Steiner, G.M. (ed.) (1992): Österreichischer Moorschutzkata-
log. 4. Auflage. – Ulrich Moser, Graz.
Steiner, G.M. (1993): Scheuchzerio-Caricetea fuscae. – In: Mu-
cina, L., Grabherr, G. & Ellmauer, T. (ed.), Die Pflanzenge-
sellschaften Österreichs. Teil I: 131 – 165. – Gustav Fischer,
Jena.
Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Moore, D.M., Val-
entine, D.H., Walters, S.M. & Webb, D.A. (1972): Flora Eu-
ropaea, Vol. 3. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Moore, D.M., Val-
entine, D.H., Walters, S.M. & Webb, D.A. (1980): Flora Eu-
ropaea, Vol. 5. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tüxen, R. (1937): Die Pflanzengesellschaften Nordwest-
deutschlands. – Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. Nieder-
sachsen 3: 1 – 170.
eschweizerbart_xxx
View publication stats
W. Willner et al.
Tüxen, R. (1947): Der Pflanzensoziologische Garten in Han-
nover und seine bisherige Entwicklung. – Jahresber.
Naturhist. Ges. Hannover 94 – 98: 113 – 288.
Tüxen, R. (1950): Grundriß einer Systematik der nitrophilen
Unkrautgesellschaften in der Eurosibirischen Region Euro-
pas. – Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. N. F. 2: 94 – 175.
Tüxen, R. (1952): Hecken und Gebüsche. – Mitt. Geogr. Ges.
Hamburg 10: 85 – 117.
Tüxen, R. (1954): Über die räumliche, durch Relief und Gestein
bedingte Ordnung der natürlichen Waldgesellschaften am
nördlichen Rande des Harzes. – Vegetatio 5 – 6: 454 – 478.
Tüxen, R. (1955): Das System der nordwestdeutschen Pflanzen-
gesellschaften. – Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. N. F. 5:
155 – 176.
Weber, H.E. (1990): Übersicht über die Brombeergebüsche der
Pteridio-Rubetalia (Franguletea) und Prunetalia (Rhamno-
Prunetea) in Westdeutschland mit grundsätzlichen Bemer-
kungen zur Bedeutung der Vegetationsstruktur. – Ber. Rein-
hold-Tüxen-Ges. 2: 91 – 119.
Weber, H.E. (1999): Rhamno-Prunetea (H2A). Schlehen- und
Traubenholunder-Gebüsche. – In: Dierschke, H. (ed.), Syn.
Pflanzenges. Deutschlands 5: 1 – 108. – Flor.-Soz. Arbeits-
gem., Göttingen.
Weber, H.E., Moravec, J. & Theurillat, J.-P. (2000): Internation-
al Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. 3rd edition. – J.
Veg. Sci. 11: 739 – 768.
Willner, W. (2002): Syntaxonomische Revision der südmitteleu-
ropäischen Buchenwälder. – Phytocoenologia 32: 33 7 – 453.
Willner, W. & Grabherr, G. (ed.) (2007): Die Wälder und Ge-
büsche Österreichs. Ein Bestimmungswerk mit Tabellen. –
Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Willner, W. & Zukrigl, K. (1999): Nomenklatorische Typisier-
ung und Validierung einiger aus Österreich beschriebener
Waldgesellschaften. – Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Österreich 136:
149 – 180.
Wisskirchen, R. & Haeupler, H. (1998): Standardliste der Farn-
und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. – Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Zukrigl, K. (1973): Montane und subalpine Waldgesellschaften
am Alpenostrand. – Mitt. Forstl. Bundes-Versuchsanst.
Wien 101: 1 – 386.
Address of authors
Wolfgang Willner, Vienna Institute for Nature Conservation
and Analyses (VINCA), Giessergasse 6/7, A-1090 Vienna, Aus-
tria; E-mail: wolfgang.willner@vinca.at
Georg Grabherr, Department of Conservation Biology, Vegeta-
tion and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Rennweg
14, A-1030 Vienna, Austria; E-mail: georg.grabherr@univie.
ac.at
Jens Pallas, Kanalstraße 81, D-48147 Münster, Germany; E-
mail: pallas@uni-muenster.de
Heinrich E. Weber, Am Bühner Bach 12, D-49565 Bramsche,
Germany; E-mail: heweber@osnanet.de