Taxonomic revision, typification and validation ofSorbus(rosaceae) taxa in the herbarium Carpato-Pannonicum in Budapest I

Taxonomical revision of Sorbus pseudosemiincisa (Rosaceae), a stenoendemic whitebeam from the Vértes Mts (Hungary), with the description of a new species, Sorbus pyricarpa

“…Geographic coordinates and altitudes were determined using Garmin eTrex Legend GPS. In the course of typifi cation work (Németh 2010) and in the following years, all the herbarium materials labelled as Sorbus pseudosemiincisa in the Hungarian Natural History Museum (BP) and Eötvös Lóránd University (BPU) were comprehensively examined, if necessary revised. Th e nomenclature of vascular plants follows Király (2009) and in the case of Sorbus collina Lepší et al (2015), while that of the plant communities follows the work of Borhidi (2003).…”

“…Not long aft erwards, as a result of an extensive mapping work, Németh (2006) Aft erwards, as part of an overall typifi cation work, S. pseudosemiincisa was also typifi ed (Németh 2010). Taking into consideration the correspondence between the specimens collected by Boros in Szappanos Valley and the leaf photo published by him in the protologue (Boros 1937), furthermore regarding a note mentioned by Kárpáti in his paper concerning a personal information from Boros himself in connection with the precise derivation of this leaf (Kárpáti 1950), the sheets coming from Szappanos Valley were designated as lectotype ( Fig.…”

Atlas Florae Europaeae notes 23. The typification and revised taxonomic circumscription of Sorbus bakonyensis (Rosaceae), with a description of Sorbus udvardyana, a new apomictic species endemic to Hungary

“…The specimens (BP 236726, BP 236727, BP 236731) collected by Gáyer at Mount Hundsheimer at Hainburg (Austria), published in Gáyer (1917) and cited by Jávorka (1927a), were also excluded from the concept of S. bakonyensis and revised as S. × franconica (Kárpáti 1949(Kárpáti , 1960a (the original locality 3). These specimens probably belong to S. slovenica Kovanda (1961: 73) (see Jakubowsky & Gutermann 1996, Németh 2010.…”

“…Kárpáti comb. nova" that appeared in Kárpáti (1949: 116) is an attempt to create an isonym, and the ascription of this combination to Kárpáti, as used in recent Hungarian literature (Barabits 2007, Németh 2009, 2010, 2012, is incorrect. In later works of Jávorka (Jávorka & Csapody 1929-1934, Jávorka 1937, Jávorka & Soó 1951) S. bakonyensis was consistently treated at the rank of species.…”

Sorbus udvardyana Somlyay & Sennikov a Balaton-felvidék keleti dolomitterületén

“…A Déli-Bakonyból, a Keszthelyi-hegységből és a Balaton-felvidék bazalt tanúhegyeiről korábban S. bakonyensis néven tárgyalt fajt (vö. BARABITS 2007, NÉMETH 2010, 2012, 2014a S. udvardyana néven írják le és tipizálják. SOMLYAY & SENNIKOV (2014) ugyanakkor megjegyzik, hogy a S. udvardyana elterjedési területén morfológiailag némileg változatos, s a különböző alakok taxonómiai rangjának megítéléséhez további vizsgálatok szükségesek (a faj leírását éppen ezért a locus classicus-szon, a Tóti-hegyen élő példányok alapján adják).…”