Accepted name

Atriplicion Passarge 1978 nom. conserv. propos.

EuroVegChecklist name (Mucina et al. 2016)

Atriplicion Passarge 1978 nom. conserv. propos.

Remarks

EuroVegChecklist

sis02 | Passarge (1978) listed 4 associations in the 'Atriplicion Hejný 76'. There is no paper by Hejný published in 1976 mentioned in the list references in Passarge (l.c.). In fact there is no such paper published by S. Hejný related to this topic at all. Passarge listed four associations in the original diagnosis of the alliance, among which two have a reference to a sufficient diagnosis, the validly published 'Sisymbrio-Atriplicetum oblongifoliae Oberd. 1957' and the 'Atriplici-Brassicetum nigrae Pass. (64) 78'. For the latter name, there is a reference to Passarge (1964) who published a 'Brassica nigra-Atriplex-Ges." (Passarge 1964: 85) serving as the original diagnosis of the 'Atriplici-Brassicetum nigrae Pass. (64) 78'. On all accounts, the 'Atriplicion Passarge 1978' is validly published. Although there are several species of 'Atriplex' in the relevés of the original diagnosis of the alliance, the correct citation of the name is 'Atriplicion nitentis Passarge 1978' because in the index of the plant communities (p. 190) Passarge added the specific epithet in referring to the alliance. Because this name has been more often used than the older Brachyaction ciliatae and the Sisymbrion sophiae (see the Remarks below) as well as the equally old Atriplici–Sisymbrion Hejný 1978 we suggest conserving the Atriplicion Passarge 1978 against the latter listed names in order to stabilise the nomenclature. (L. Mucina).

Synonyms

• Atriplicion Hejný 1976 (phantom)
• Atriplicion tataricae Gutte 1973 (2b)
• Atriplici–Sisymbrion Hejný 1978 (syntax.syn.) – sis06 For the reasons of the validity of this name, see Dengler et al. (2003: 599). (L. Mucina).
• Brachyaction ciliatae Pop et Viţalariu 1971 (syntax.syn.) – sis04 This alliance was validly described (Pop & Viţalariu 1971), with the Erigeronto canadensis-Brachyactetum ciliatae (the holotypus of the alliance) described in the same paper. This name as well as the other validly described alliance in Romanian literature for the same syntaxonomic contents − the Sisymbion sophiae Mititelu et Barabaş 1972, have been hardly used in the European phytosociological literature. (L. Mucina).
• Chenopodio-Atriplicion tataricae (Mucina in Krippelová et Mucina 1988) Mucina 1991 (2b)
• Rumici crispi-Polygonion avicularis Bagrikova 1996 (syntax.syn.)
• Sisymbrion Oberd. 1956 (2b)
• Sisymbrion sophiae Mititelu et Barabaş 1972 (31) – sis05 The (valid) description of this alliance is one of those serendipitous events. The lectotype of this alliance is 'Sisymbrietum sophiae Kreh 35' (see Mititelu & Barabaş 1972: 133). Yet it is to be considered a late rhomonym of the Sisymbrion sophiae Tx. et al. ex Görs 1966. (L. Mucina).
• Sisymbrion sophiae Tx. et al. ex Görs 1966 (syntax.syn.) – sis03 In Görs (1966), there is no reference to von Rochow (1951) for the alliance 'Sisymbrion Tx., Lohm, Prsg. 50' (pp. 478, 530). It is therefore, the name in Görs has to be considered as published independently from the latter name. In the original diagnosis of the name 'Sisymbrion Tx., Lohm, Prsg. ex Görs 1966'; there is no Sisymbrium officinale, but only S. sophia and therefore the name 'Sisymbrion sophiae Tx., Lohm, Prsg. ex Görs 1966' is not a later homonym of the 'Sisymbrion officinalis Tx., Lohm, Prsg. ex von Rochow 1951' when the specific epithet are added according to ICPN Rec. 10C. (J.-P. Theurillat).