sab01 | This proposal was suggested in Rivas-Martínez et al. (2002a), following the ICPN art. 10b. Although not approved by the Nomenclatural Commission yet, we prefer to use the inverted form as it is clear that Pinus sylvestris is the dominating element; nowadays the concept of this class is used for woodland communities. The addition of the specific epithet 'sabina' is, however, prohibited because there are two species of Juniperus occur in the original diagnosis (J. sabina, J. nana) and hence ICPN art. 40a applies. (L. Mucina, J.-P. Theurillat).
Junipero sabinae-Pinetea ibericae Rivas-Mart. 1965 nom. mut. propos. et nom. invers. propos.
(Rec.10C, mut.superfl.)
– sab03 This suggestion to 'correct' (recte: 'mutate') the name, published by Rivas-Martínez et al. (2011: 474), is based on replacement of considering P. sylvestris var. iberica Svoboda as the eponymous taxon. We consider this suggestion superfluous since the current taxonomy does not ascribe any notable status to this taxon. (L. Mucina).
Pino-Juniperetea Rivas-Mart. 1965 (orig.form)
(42)
– sab02 Unlike some authors (e.g. Stanisci 1997; Brullo et al. 2001b) we limit the applicability of this concept only to the mediterranean orographic systems and consider structurally similar vegetation types (dominated by various Pinus and Juniperus species occurring at high altitudes of the nemoral mountain ranges (incl. Alps, Apennines, Carpathians and Dinarides) as belonging to other classes such as the Erico-Pinetea, Pyrolo-Pinetea and Cetrario-Loiseleurietea (Juniperus nana low scrub). (L. Mucina) The overall differentiation between the Junipero-Pinetea and the Pyrolo-Pinetea is weak. The geographic distinction might be used more usefully at a lower syntaxonomic level. (K. Dierssen).
This web page uses for the attendance analysis cookies. By using this web you agree with this.
More info.