Kanitzia 18. - NYME Természettudományi Kar - Nyugat ...

forma villosissima Prodan 1957; S. villicaulis var. simplex Prodan 1957
▪ S. tesquicola Klokov & Pobed., in Flora URSS 21: 662 (Addenda) (1954);
S. nemorosa L. subsp. tesquicola (Klokov & Pobed.) Soó, in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci.
Hung. 11: 249 (1965);
S. amplexicaulis auct. roman., quoad pl. South-East Romania, non Lam.
* From Babadag, locality in the Romanian Dobrudja (Dobrogea)
The first correct combination for the taxonomical position of this plant (subspecies)
is the one made by NYÁRÁDY in 1942. The combination of SOÓ (1965) is based on
the fact that probably he did not know that S. “villicaulis” (today named amplexicaulis)
does not grow in the central part of Dobrudja.
The first who collected a plant in the affinity area of the our herb in Dobrudja
were the Sintenis brothers and they were classified by Uechtritz [?PR] (KANITZ 1881: 93)
as Salvia betonicifolia (auct., non Etling). "Dobr.: passim in desertis, semper cum ambob.,
anteced. (S. nutans L.) ex quibus certe hibrida". The plant is then mentioned and extensively
described with this name by BRANDZA (1898: 312), who emphasizes „the villous stalk”,
therefore this plant is not related to Etling’s. The next mention was made by GRECESCU
(1909: 132) under the name of "Salvia betonicaefolia Etling" in „Valul lui Trajan,
Constanţa, located in Dobrudja” however with no description but probably referring to the
same plant. The two indications are also to be found in the Abstract written by PRODAN
(1938: 35) without any comments. Much later PRODAN (1957: 308) introduces in Dobrudja
this taxon that seems to be related to our plant "S. villicaulis Borb. var. simplex Prod. var.
nova, Mangalia, ad viam.” I visited the area myself, it contains a multitude of Salvia-species
and it was there where I only collected S. babadagensis! Another taxon is: Salvia villicaulis
Borb. var. pseudovillicaulis Prod. var. nova – „ad viam ferream prope Feteşti; et forma villosissima
Prod., non rite publicatum, sine diagn. latina!”
DIHORU (1970: 135) made comprehensive remarks concerning the taxonomy of
this plant on our territory and determined that only Salvia tesquicola springs up in Dobrudja.
Nevertheless both subspecies (subsp. nemorosa, subsp. tesquicola) appear in the
Eastern outermost part of Muntenia and in Dobrudja “steppe, forest steppe” and in the
identifying work of BELDIE (1979: 78) or in various editions of CIOCÂRLAN floras’ were indicated
S. amplexicaulis Lam. (S. villicaulis Borbás) from the counties of Ilfov, Constanţa,
Tulcea (CIOCÂRLAN 1990: 182); counties of Caraş-Severin, Mehedinţi, Ilfov, Constanţa,
Tulcea (CIOCÂRLAN 2000: 667); and counties of Caraş-Severin, Mehedinţi, Constanţa, Tulcea
(CIOCÂRLAN 2009: 659).
The populations of S. nemorosa subsp. babadagensis grows throughout Dobrudja
as well as in the east and southern outermost part of Muntenia, south of the line set by
Feteşti – Silva Ciornuleasa – Comana – Vadul-Lat – Slatina (inform. ined.). It is likely that
the plant was mistaken for S. amplexicaulis Lam. or S. nemorosa, just like Prodan (1939)
did with the plants in Dobrudja, naming it in accordance with the denomination given by
Panţu, S. nemorosa from “Silistra, Cavarna, Harman-Cuiusu, Opancea” (PRODAN 1938) or
S. ‘villicaulis’ “in Cadrilater at Tulcea” (PRODAN 1938).
In Romania Salvia amplexicaulis Lam. (syn. S. villicaulis Borbás) is a very rare
species growing only in few areas in the SW of the country and it was erroneously indicated
54