Nomenclatural review validates Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae for Siberian larch forests

A nomenclatural review concludes that the alliance name Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae was not validly published in 1988 or 2004 and formally validates it as Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae Ermakov et Theurillat all. nov. The paper applies the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature to the names, diagnoses, designated types and taxonomic treatment of syntaxa representing light-coniferous forests in southern Siberia and adjacent areas of northern Mongolia.

The review is a taxonomic and nomenclatural analysis of previously published syntaxonomic names, not a field experiment, population study or assessment of temporal forest change. Its scope is the formal validity, typification, synonymy and wording of names associated with boreal larch and pine-larch vegetation. The newly validated alliance is defined by the association Carici iljinii-Laricetum sibiricae as its holotype, with Pinus sibirica, Calamagrostis obtusata, Carex iljinii, Luzula parviflora and Poa sibirica listed as diagnostic species.

The analysis begins with the suballiance Pino-Laricenion, proposed by Guinochet in 1982 with two associations from the Eastern Sayan mountains. The review finds that Rhododendro-Pinetum sibiricae and Piceo obovatae-Abietetum sibiricae were not validly published because neither name had a type relevé designated. The first name also failed to identify its name-giving species unambiguously: Rhododendron dauricum occurred in both relevés and R. aureum occurred in relevé 2. Because the diagnosis of Pino-Laricenion contained only these two invalidly published associations, the suballiance name was likewise invalid.

The 1988 attempt to validate Rhododendro-Pinetum sibiricae did not overcome those defects. Although Dostálek and colleagues selected a type and cited the 1982 work unambiguously, the diagnosis still did not identify a single name-giving Rhododendron species. The review therefore rejects the proposed amendment to Rhododendro dahurici-Pinetum sibiricae, noting that the original diagnosis included both relevés rather than only the selected type. As a result, the 1988 alliance name was invalid because its designated type association had not been validly published.

The authors identify a different defect in the 2004 treatment by Ermakov and Alsynbayev. The intended name Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae and the name Ledo-Laricion sibiricae were assigned the same validly published type, Carici iljinii-Laricetum sibiricae. Although Ledo-Laricion sibiricae appears to be a typographical error, its diagnosis contained one suitable type element, making it validly published under the code. The two names were consequently homotypic synonyms published at the same time, and neither could remain valid under the alternative-name provision.

The review also finds that Ledo palustris-Laricetalia cajanderi was validly published in 2004. Its diagnosis included the validly published alliance Ledo palustris-Laricion cajanderi as its type. The absence of the Latin word “typus” did not invalidate the order name because the type was identified in Russian as “Номенклатурный тип.” On that basis, the review treats the 2023 republications of the alliance and order as later superfluous names, contrary to the stated reason for republishing them.

Taxonomic changes also require corrections and mutations to several syntaxon names. The review treats Ledum palustre as Rhododendron tomentosum and Larix cajanderi as Larix gmelinii. Accordingly, the order name becomes Rhododendro tomentosi-Laricetalia gmelinii Ermakov et Alsynbayev 2004 nom. corr. et mut. nov., and the alliance Ledo palustris-Laricion cajanderi becomes Rhododendro tomentosi-Laricion gmelinii. Two associations receive parallel treatment: Ledo palustris-Pinetum sibiricae becomes Rhododendro tomentosi-Pinetum sibiricae, and Ledo palustris-Laricetum cajanderi becomes Rhododendro tomentosi-Laricetum gmelinii.

At the time of publication, the newly validated alliance included nine associations. It covers larch and pine-larch forests in the upper forest belt of the continental and ultra-continental climatic sectors of southern Siberia and adjacent northern Mongolia, where they occupy north-facing mountain slopes at altitudes of 1,400–2,000 metres above sea level. The review does not validate Rhododendro-Pinetum sibiricae, which it considers floristically close to Bergenio crassifoliae-Laricetum sibiricae and two other associations. It also leaves Piceo-Abietetum sibiricae unvalidated because the association cannot be placed in the order under consideration.

Overall, the paper concludes that Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae was invalidly published in both the 1988 and 2004 treatments, establishes the name in the present review, and corrects or mutates related syntaxon names for Siberian forests. Its findings concern formal nomenclatural status and taxonomic wording; the paper reports no ecological experiments, long-term forest monitoring or quantitative estimates of environmental change.

Subject of Research: Nomenclatural validation and correction of syntaxa for Siberian light-coniferous forests

Article Title: Comments on nomenclature of the order Rhododendro tomentosi-Laricetalia gmelinii and validation of the alliance Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae

Article References: Ermakov, N., & Theurillat, J.-P. (2024). Comments on nomenclature of the order Rhododendro tomentosi-Laricetalia gmelinii and validation of the alliance Pino sibiricae-Laricion sibiricae. Vegetation Classification and Survey, 5, 179-184. https://doi.org/10.3897/vcs.126091

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/VCS.126091

Keywords: phytosociology, plant nomenclature, Siberian forests, syntaxonomy, boreal vegetation, larch forests, pine-larch forests, typification, taxonomy, Comments, nomenclature, order