DOI: 10.2478/HACQ-2013-0004
HACQUETIA 12/1 • 2013, 133-140
Two NoTEs to syntaxa names stemmed from polish geobotanical studies
Peter KUCERA1
Abstract
This paper comments on nomenclature of the name Piceion excelsae of Pawlowski et al. (1928), which should be preferably referred using the form "Piceion excelsae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928". In the author's opinion, the definition of Recommendation 46D in the current International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (author citations with "ex") needs to be revised to define alternatively the difference in contrast to Recommendation 46C (author citations with "in"): to highlight the difference at the place and time of the valid publication of the name handled. The equally aged name "Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928" is invalidly published. The oldest validly published homonym found should be ascribed to Walas (1933).
Key words: author citation, Fagetalia sylvaticae, nomenclature, Piceion excelsae, syntaxonomy. Izvleček
V članku obravnavamo poimenovanje zveze Piceion excelsae, ki so jo podali Pawlowski et al. (1928), kjer pa bi bilo bolje uporabiti obliko "Piceion excelsae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928". Po avtorjevem mnenju definicija Priporočila 46D v trenutni obliki Mednarodnega kodeksa fitocenološke nomenklature (citati avtorjev z "ex") potrebuje revizijo, ki bi opredelila razlike proti Priporočilu 46C (citati avtorjev z "in"): da bi izpostavili razlike med mestom in časom objave obravnavanega imena. Ime sintaksona "Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928" je neveljavno objavljeno. Avtor najstarejšega veljavno objavljenega homonima je Walas (1933).
Ključne besede: citati avtorjev, Fagetalia sylvaticae, nomenklatura, Piceion excelsae, sintaksonomija.
1. INTRODUCTION
The accuracy of a syntaxon name used to label exclusively one syntaxon is an important requirement of modern phytosociology. Syntaxonom-ical-phytosociological studies should give clear and above all useful results that could be the basis and reason for the wider use of syntaxa names in the biological and geographical sciences, as well as in nature conservation.
The only proper method of defining a syn-taxon name is to follow the original description
of a syntaxon as given by the original author. Naturally, preferred is the one that fulfilled the rules of the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (Weber et al. 2000; further as ICPN) for valid publication. Specification of the nomenclatural type for a syntaxon is another condition for the clear use of a syntaxon.
This paper discusses several nomenclatural issues from the famous (and then very influential) paper entitled Die Pflanzenassoziationen und die Flora des Morskie Oko-Tales by Pawlowski et al. (1928).
1 Comenius University in Bratislava, Botanical Garden, workplace Blatnica, 038 15 Blatnica 315, Slovakia, peter.kucera@rec.uniba.sk
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Piceion excelsae
The name Vaccinio-Piceion was commonly used in older Polish publications (e.g. W. Matuszkiewicz 1964, 1982; J. Matuszkiewicz 1977) for an alliance comprising natural upper montane Picea abies communities. In newer works (see W. Matuszkiewicz 2001, J. Matuszkiewicz 2002), this name was in accordance with ICPN replaced by the older heterotypical synonym Piceion excelsae validly published by Pawlowski et al. (1928). [The preferred names for superordinate syntaxa are Picee-talia abietis (cf. Matuszkiewicz 2002) and Piceetea excelsae (cf. Kucera 2010, 2012).] The corresponding author citation was in the former survey used in the form "Pawl. et al. 1928", in the latter one longer "Pawl. in Pawl. et al. 1928". The last mentioned form is also preferred by Czech (Jirasek 2002) and Austrian (Wallnöfer 1993, Willner et al. 2007) authors.
However, Pawlowski et al. (1928) explicitly specified that they used the system of plant communities as proposed earlier by Pawlowski (1928):
„... Die von uns angeführten Vergleichsangaben bezüglich der letzgenannten Assoziationen sind denn auch in überwiegender Mehrzahl dem Braun'schen Werke entnommen worden. Zu anderen Arbeiten greifen wir nur in den Fällen, wenn es sich um im genannten Werke unberücksichtigt gelassene Pflanzengesellschaften handelt. Die Bedeutung des letzteren besteht ferner darin, daß es das System der alpinen Pflanzengesellschaften weiter ausbaut, indem nicht nur die Assoziationen allein, sondern auch die höheren Einheiten, die Verbände und Ordnungen, daselbst eine präzise Umgrenzung finden. Erst dadurch wurde es möglich, auch die Pflanzengesellschaften der Tatra in ein sich an das Braun'sche eng anschließendes System zusammenzustellen, was denn auch vor kurzer Zeit von B. Pawlowski (11) ausgeführt wurde. Dieser Zusammenstellung folgen wir auch in vorliegender Arbeit." (Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 218) [bold by P. K.].
As the alliance name Piceion excelsae was val-idly published merely in the later, secondary publication (i.e. Pawlowski et al. 1928), the succession of authors' [resp. publications'] order should be expressed, in my opinion, also in the corresponding author citation, i.e. "Piceion ex-celsae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928" as I
proposed in the renewed synopsis of Slovak plant communities (Jarolimek et al. 2008, p. 321). In this case, the name of Pawlowski is repeated in the suggested author citation.
It might seem that such duplication is superfluous: though, ICPN Art. 46 (Rec. 46C, 46D) does not give closer directions to similar "repetitive" situations or their preclusion, respectively. On the contrary, ICPN does not regulate repetitions of author names (Art. 46, 48-51).
The mentioned ICPN Recommendations 46C and 46C handle two different, however similar nomenclatural situations of extending an author citation with the name of an author who is not directly linked with an author of the final publication. Of course, various cases could fall into consideration. For example: (1) author A who proposed the name (eventually with sufficient original diagnosis), and (2) collective of authors (including author A) who published the final outcome (an article, or a book). [Array of authors' groups with a repetition of author's name could also be reverted, which exemplifies Rec. 46C: "Oberdorfer et Th. Müller in Th. Müller"1].
Comparing the definition of Rec. 46C (author A in author B) and the ICPN example within Rec. 46D (author A ex author B) it might seem that the considered difference between "in" and "ex" could be "authorship of a sufficient original diagnosis". However, the inclusion of synonyms by origin (Art. 3a) under effect of Rec. 46D does not support only such interpretation: cf. Ober-dorfer's (1957) invalidly published name "Pyrolo-Abietetum Oberdorfer 1957, pro syn." already with
1 In the ICPN Rec. 46C examples, "Preslietum cervinae Br.-Bl. in Moor 1937" is not a proper sample, because Moor (1937, p. 23) cited a nomen nudum, exactly in the form "Preslietum cervinae Br.-Bl. 1931 n. n.". Yet, validation of nomina nuda is treated by ICPN Rec. 46D: in a matter of fact relevant author citation should be from the nomen-clatural point of view "Br.-Bl. ex Moor 1937" although Moor (1937) published original diagnosis compiled from Braun-Blanquet's phytosociological relevés.
Indeed, Braun-Blanquet (1931) did not publish the name "Preslietum cervinae" at all, thus the connection of syntaxon name "Preslietum cervinae" with author citation "Br.-Bl. 1931 n. n." in Moor (1937) should be evaluated as a nomen fictum (phanthom name).
A similar case of nomen nudum is name "Vaccinio-Pi-ceion Br.-Bl. 1938 n. n." published by Braun-Blanquet et al. (1939, p. 10): the correct author citation should be "Br.-Bl. ex Br.-Bl et al. 1939" (see below).
an original diagnosis given by Oberdorfer himself. Later validation of this name "by another author" (ICPN, p. 757), i.e. author citation with "ex", should respect the given original diagnosis of Oberdorfer.
ICPN Rec. 46D speaks of "one author" [author of a name, invalid publication] and "another author" [name validating author]. In my conception, relating to the case Piceion excelsae and other similar syntaxa names of Pawlowski et al. (1928), the authorship "Pawlowski" and the authorship "Pawlowski, Sokolowski et Wallisch" are two different cases, highlighted by two different corresponding papers published at different times. Validating authors Pawlowski et al. (1928) exactly and clearly ascribed authorship of the name to Pawlowski (1928).
Considering "in" and "ex" author citations, main accent should be given by ICPN, in my opinion, into the "place and time" of the publishing of a valid syntaxon name. After this manner, no changes are required to the current definition of ICPN Rec. 46C (author citation with "in"): "When the name of syntaxon with a sufficient original diagnosis is validly published by one author in the work of another author(s)..." [bold by P. K.]. Following this definition, it is obvious that the place and time of publication (and also the place and time of a valid publication) of the name is identical with the place and time of the final paper (an article within a scientific journal, a monograph).
In contrast to Rec. 46C, subsequent Rec. 46D (author citation with "ex") should cover, from my point of view, above all the different sources (papers) of (1) the first, however invalid proposal of the name, and (2) the subsequent validation of the same name in a different paper, published later of course. Generally, three cases of such validation could occur [in addition to Rec. 46C specifying only "one author" and "another author", see above]:
1)	author B who validly publishes an older invalid name of author A,
2)	authors B + C + A validating an older invalid name of author A, or, author C who validly publishes an older invalid name of authors A + B + C,
3)	author A who validates his own older invalid name.
The first example is simple and clear. However, it should be kept in mind the case that also "author B" might use for validating of an invalid name (for example: nomen nudum) the sufficient
original diagnosis of "author A". Formally, this is not a reason for author citation with "in".
The second example is the case of Piceion excelsae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928. In my opinion, in such a way should be expressed the correct author citation of this syntaxon name: simply because the name Piceion excelsae was originally proposed by Pawlowski (1928), and this study was the keystone on which other papers could lean. I propose the re-definition of Rec. 46D in this way. A future solution within ICPN might help clear up also more complicated author citations, as could be shown with the complicated form "Piceetea excelsae Klika in Klika et Hadac ex Klika 1948" once used by me (cf. Kucera 2007).2
The third example given above could seem disputable. In my opinion, such a case should not be predestined to automatic rejection by ICPN, especially in the case of older works published before the establishment of ICPN. Technically, it is an identical situation as above in examples 1 and 2, with two different places and time of publication. Naturally, a limitation should be ruled by ICPN (cf. current Art 63, Rec. 46D) including the age of handled names to avoid a flood of fruitless validations in the present.
In respect of the original statements of Pawlowski et al. (1928) on the origin of the syntaxonomical system used by them, I treat as the correct form of the name Piceion excelsae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928. In my opinion, this proposal is not in conflict with ICPN rules, however, a revision of current Rec. 46D definition is necessary, as shown above.
Considering the author citation of Piceion excelsaes as published in various studies (i.e. Pawlowski in Pawlowski et al. 1928), it seems that some authors are focused more on the first pages of the later published study (Pawlowski et al. 1928) than on the factual origin of the syntaxo-nomical system of Pawlowski et al. (1928). The following quotation is given there::
2 Compare also other names, e.g. Delphinion elati Hadač ex Hadač et al. 1969/Delphinenion elati (Hadač ex Hadač et
al. 1969) Kliment et al. 2004, Festuco supinae-Racomitrie-
tum lanuginosi (Hadač 1956) Dubravcova ex Dubravcova
et Jarolimek 2007, Ranunculo pseudomontani-Caricetum
sempervirens (Krajina 1933) Dubravcova ex Dubravcova
et Jarolimek 2007 (Kliment et al. 2004, 2007); or a special "in" citation example Mulgedio-Aconitetea Hadač et Klika in Klika et Hadač 1944 (Chytry et al. 2007).
8 The current definition of ICPN Recommendation 51A does not correspond with ICPN Art. 6.
„In die Bearbeitung der einzelnen Asoziatio-nen haben sich die Verfasser in der Weise geteilt, das K. Wallisch das Luzuletum spadiceae, Salicion herbaceae und Nardion, M. Sokolowski das Ade-nostyletum, Aconitetum firmi, Piceetum und die Cardamine Opizii-, Cratoneuron-Assoziation, B. Pawlowski die übrigen Assoziationen sowie außerdem die Behandlung des floristichen Teiles übernahm." (Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 206).
Considering only this statement, the citation form "Piceion excelsae Pawlowski in Pawlowski et al. 1928" would seem the right one. However, according to this quotation, the association Piceetum excelsae was characterised by Sokolowski: in this relation Sokolowski would be the author of the association name. Interestingly, the superordinate alliance Piceion excelsae is not characterised at all in the same publication (cf. Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 257), so we should identify the alliance with its only association Piceetum excelsae (Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 257-258, tab. XII). Thus in the frame of this approach, there would be relatively more space for ascribing the alliance name to Sokolowski than to Pawlowski.
As shown above, in my opinion a consideration of the original authors' statement on p. 218 is the most important basis for creating the correct author citation (i.e. Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928). In addition, the beginning of the above given quotation should be carefully regarded, where it is specified that above all the association syntaxa were characterised by the particular authors of the study. A more detailed description of the manner of cooperation of the authors is given in Polish, regularly a more explicit version of the whole study, i.e. Pawlowski et al. (1929), where an equivalent part of the text brings important details:
„Materialy nagromadzone przez nas obejmuj^ przedewszystkiem przeszlo 130 ,zdj^c' (spisow) fytosocjologicznych, dalej przeszlo 20 fotografij, znaczna ilosc zapiskow odnosnie do pionowego zasi^gu poszczegolnych gatunkow, wreszcie spo-ry zielnik, zawieraj^cy m. i. szereg rzadkosci flo-rystycznych.
Prac^ w terenie dzielilismy si£ zazwyczaj w ten sposob, ze dwoch z nas wykonywalo ,zdj^cie' - przyczem przewaznie jeden pisal, a drugi dyk-towal - trzeci zas mial glownie zadanie zebrac rownoczesnie mchy i porosty. Umozliwilo to pra-c£ szybk^.. Co do samego opracowania wynikow, to zespoly Luzuletum spadiceae, Salicion herbaceae i Nardetum opisal K. Wallisch - zespoly: Adeno-
styletum, Aconitetum firmi, Piceetum i Cratoneuron decipiens-Cardamine Opizii, opisal M. Sokolowski; opisy reszty zespolow wykonal B. Pawlowski, ktory ponadto zaj^l cal^. florystyczn^. strong pra-cy." (Pawlowski et al. 1929, p. 172).4
It is clear that the entire publication (in Polish as well as German version) was the result of the team work of all three authors. The same stands for the authorship of "a sufficient original diagnosis" of Piceetum excelsae (thus also Piceion excelsae: see above). Therefore the author citation "Pawlowski in Pawlowski et al. 1928" [in this case rather "Sokolowski in Pawlowski et al. 1928"] is incorrect.
Fagetalia sylvaticae
Similarly, others author citations of syntaxa of Pawlowski et al. (1928) should be corrected, including another higher-ranked name for forest communities: Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928. The corresponding name is widely used as correct one (cf. Moravec et al. 1982). Mostly overlooked is the fact that publication of this name does not fit the condition of a valid publication (Kucera 2008), as its original diagnosis does not contain the required indication of the name giving taxon, i.e. Fagus sylvatica, specified by ICPN (Art. 3f) as follows:
"... When the name-giving taxon or taxa are not indicated in the original diagnosis either directly or indirectly (i.e. in the original diagnoses of the subordinate syntaxa that have been quoted in the original diagnosis of a syntaxon above association)."
4 Translation in Polish (P. Kucera):
"Material collected by us contains above all over 130 phytosociological relevés, a further over 20 photographs, a considerable amount of records on the vertical range of particular species, finally considerable herbarium, containing among others a number of floristic rarities.
We divided the field work usually in such a way that two of us were making the relevé (whereby mostly one was writing and the other dictating) while the third had mainly the task to collect bryophytes and lichens at the same time. It enabled a quick work. As for the elaboration of results, K. Wallisch described the asssociations Luzuletum spadiceae, Salicion herbaceae i Nardetum*, M. Sokolowski associations Adenostyletum, Aconitetum firmi, Piceetum and Cratoneuron decipiens-Cardamine Opizii*; B. Pawlowski made a description of the rest of the associations, he also took the entire floristic part of the study." * Differently when compared to the German version (cf. Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 206).
Within the order of Fagetalia sylvaticae, the subordinate alliance Fagion sylvaticae contains only one association Fagetum sylvaticae tatricum without any phytosociological relevé (cf. Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 259), and Fagus sylvatica is not present in two relevés of the association Alnetum in-canae (cf. Pawlowski et al. 1928, p. 259-260, tab. XIII) of the second alliance (Alnion incanae) in the frame of this order. Thus, another equivalent validly published name should be found.5
The name Fagetalia was described several times in the phytosociological literature. Probably the most known paper should be Vlieger's (1937) Aperçu sur les Unités Phytosociologiques Superiéres des Pays-Bas, as in common phytoso-ciological use the name Fagetalia is inseparably united with a name of pan-European importance: Querco-Fagetea originally described by Vlieger. The original description of the class Querco pu-bescentis-Fagetea (Vlieger 1937, p. 349)6 contains two orders: (1) Quercetalia pubescentis Br.-Bl. ex Vlieger 1937, and (2) "Fagetalia (Pawlowski 1928 n.n.) Tuxen et Diemont 1936", i.e. "Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski ex Tuxen et Diemont 1936".
In spite of that one could understand Vlieg-er's reasons for giving such author citation (= to "guess the right paper" of Pawlowski), given association of the authors' names is fictitious in the view of ICPN as Tuxen & Diemont (1936, p. 135) did not indicate nor the name of Pawlowski neither his corresponding paper when they mentioned the order "Fagetalia". In addition, this order name was not validly published by Tuxen & Diemont (1936), since the conditions of the sufficient original diagnosis (ICPN Art. 2b, Art. 8) were not fulfilled: subordinate alliance "Eufa-gion (Fagion)" is nomen nudum (Art. 2b), names uAlnio-Carpinion"/uFraxinio-Carpinion" are to be rejected according to the ICPN Art. 3b.
Into the order Fagetalia, Vlieger (1937, p. 350) classified the alliance "Alneto-Fraxinion (Tuxen et Diemont 1936) Meyer Drees 1936", and at the
5	The same nomenclatural conclusion was published already by Dengler et al. (2004). However, their consequent proposal on name priority was insufficient (see below). [Note by P. K., 28. 3. 2013.]
6	According to the current author, the original name form "Querceto-Fagetales" was created in the same way as the class name "Isoeto-Litorelletales" (Vlieger 1937, p. 339): as a combination of names of two subordinated orders, i.e. "Quercetalia pubescentis" and "Fagetalia" in the first case. Therefore the class name is completed here according to ICPN Rec. 10C.
same time an unambiguous reference to the study of Meijer Drees was given. Because Fagus sylvatica is included in the cited work of Meijer Drees (1936) within the original diagnoses of subordinated units, Vlieger (1937) published the order name validly. The nomenclatural evaluation of related syntaxa names is the following:
Order Fagetalia sylvaticae Tuxen et Diemont ex Vlieger 1937, nom. illeg. (Art. 31)
Nomenclatural type: Vlieger (1937), p. 350, Alno-Fraxinion Meijer Drees 19367, holotypus (Art. 18).
However, in this way Vlieger (1937) published a nomenclatural (homotypical) synonym because Meijer Drees (1936) also described a syntaxon carrying the same name Fagetalia sylvaticae:
Order Fagetalia sylvaticae Meijer Drees 1936, nom. illeg. (Art. 31)
Nomenclatural type: Meijer Drees (1936), p. 26, 61, Alno-Fraxinion Meijer Drees 1936, holotypus (Art. 18).
Alliance Alno-Fraxinion Meijer Drees 1936 Nomenclatural type: Meijer Drees (1936), p. 61, Querco-Carpinetum Meijer Drees 19368, holotypus (Art. 18).
Concerning the distribution of forest phyto-coenoses with Fagus sylvatica, as well as the original phytosociological content of these names, it is clear that the above given two "Fagetalia" names have syntaxonomical meaning somewhat different from the traditional use. Another homonymous (but heterotypical) order name Fagetalia sylvaticae Klika 1936 was published by Klika (1936). Based on forest phytocoenoses from the Vel'ka Fatra Mts, the Western Carpathians, this name provides a syntaxonomical content corresponding to current general scientific use. However, there is another and older order name available. It comes from another monograph, which belongs after studies of Szafer and coll. to one of
7	Only Meijer Drees (1936, p. 61) should be presented as the author of the alliance name: the work of Tuxen & Diemont (1936) refered to by Vlieger (1937) was not mentioned by Meijer Drees, notwithstanding that Meijer Drees could be inspired by R. Tuxen (cf. Meijer Drees 1936, p. 61).
8	The nomenclatural type for the association Querco-Carpinetum (resp. according to ICPN Art. 10b Carpino-Querce-tum roboris Meijer Drees 1936) is not proposed here, because it should be published from the phytosociological material of Meijer Drees (1936) according to the situation of the association phytocoenoses in Holland: probably from the subassociation Carpino-Quercetum roboris stachyetosum sylvaticae.
the basic phytosociological works in Poland, also well-known at least in Slovakia and Czech Republic. It is the study of Walas (1933) on the vegetation of Babia Gora. His syntaxonomical system relies greatly on the syntaxonomical system of Pawlowski (cf. Walas 1933, p. 16-17), yet any particular study of Pawlowski is cited by syntaxa names. So the syntaxa names are here ascribed directly to Walas:
Order Fagetalia sylvaticae Walas 1933 Nomenclatural type: Walas (1933), p. 54, Fa-gion sylvaticae Walas 1933, holotypus (Art. 18).
Alliance Fagion sylvaticae Walas 1933, nom. il-leg. (Art. 31)
Nomenclatural type: Walas (1933), p. 54, Fage-tum sylvaticae carpaticum Walas 1933, holotypus (Art. 18).
Association Fagetum sylvaticae carpaticum Walas 1933, nom. illeg. (Art. 31, 34)
Nomenclatural type: Walas (1933, p. 54-61), tab. XVII, rel. 3, lectotypus hoc loco.
The name Fagion sylvaticae Walas 1933, nom. illeg. is a heterotypic (syntaxonomical) synonym of the older homonym Fagion sylvaticae Luquet 1926, which should be syntaxonomically subordinated to the order Fagetalia sylvaticae Walas 1933. According to the performed study of literature sources, a substitution for the invalidly published name Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski ex Pawlowski et al. 1928, nom. inval. (Art. 3f) is the name Fagetalia sylvaticae Walas 1933, which is the earliest validly published homonym, thus a "correct name" (Art. 22).9 Therefore the suggestion of giving priority to the name "Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski et al. ex Tx. 1937" published by Den-gler et al. (2004) is improper.10
It is for the consideration of a particular syntaxonomical approach whether one will refer this order within (1) the class Querco pubescentis-Fagetea Braun-Blanquet et Vlieger in Vlieger 1937, which originally combines xerophilous communities with Quercus pubescens and obviously wet Alno-Fraxinion communities with A-G soil profile
9	This conclusion (from the manuscript version of this paper) has been already adopted in this journal (cf. Hac-quetia, 11/1, p. 154, 2012).
10	Moreover, Dengler et al. (2004) created by this way a fictitious author citation as Tiixen (1937) did not ascribe the name Fagetalia sylvaticae to "Pawlowski et al.". In addition, Tiixen (1937) did not accompany the name with an unambiguous reference to the paper of Pawlowski (1928).
(cf. Meijer Drees 1936, p. 61), or into (2) a syntaxonomically narrower class, according to Willner et al. (2007, p. 228) with the proper name Carpino-Fagetea Jakucs 1967.
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank for the provision of some difficult to obtain literature sources Z. Svrckovâ and employees of the Slovak National Library, Martin, and also to both reviewers for valuable comments to the first version of the manuscript, and for corrections of English. The preparation of this study was supported by the Slovak grant agency VEGA, Project Grant No. 2/0059/11.
4. REFERENCES
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1931: Aperçu sur les groupements végétaux du Bas-Languedoc. Commun. Stat. Int. Géobot. Médit. Montpellier 9: 35-40.
Braun-Branquet, J., Sissingh, G., Vlieger, J. 1939: Prodromus der Pflanzengesellschaften: Prodrome des Groupements végétaux. Hauptred. J. Braun-Blanquet. Fasz. 6. Klasse der Vacci-nio-Piceetea (Nadeholz- und Vaccinienheiden-Verbände der eurosibirisch-nordamerikanischen Region). Comité International du Prodrome Phytosociologique, 124 pp. Dengler, J., Koska, I., Timmermann, T., Berg, C., Clausnitzer, U., Iserman, M., Linke, C., Pä-zolt, J., Polte, T. & Spangenberg, A. 2004: New descriptions and typifications of syntaxa within the project 'Plant communities of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and their vulnerability' -Part II. Feddes Repertorium115/3-4: 343-392. Chytry, M. (ed.), Koci, M., Sumberovâ, K., Sâdlo, J., Krahulec, F., Hâjkovâ, P., Hâjek, M., Hoffmann, A., Blazkovâ, D., Kucera, T., Novâk, J., Reznickovâ, M., Cerny, T., Hrtel, H., et Simon-ovâ, D., Tichy, L., Knollovâ, I., Otypkovâ, Z., Danihelka, J., Hâjek, O., Kubosovâ, K., Kari-movâ, K. & Rozehnal, J. 2007: Vegetace Ceské republiky. 1. Travinnâ a kenckovâ vegetace. Academia, Praha, 528 pp. Jarolimek, I., Sibik, J., Hegedûsovâ, K., Janisovâ, M., Kliment, J., Kucera, P., Mâjekovâ, J., Michâlkovâ, D., Sadlonovâ, J., Sibikovâ, I., Skodovâ, I., Uhlirovâ, J., Ujhâzy, K., Ujhâzy-ovâ, M., Valachovic, M. & Zaliberovâ, M.
2008: A list of vegetation units of Slovakia. In: Jarolimek, I., Sibik, J. (eds) et al.: Diagnostic, constant and dominant species of the higher vegetation units of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava, pp. 295-329.
Jirâsek, J. 2002: Trida: Vaccinio-Piceetea Br.-Bl. in Braun-Blanquet, Sissingh et Vlieger 1939. In Husovâ, M., Jirâsek, J. et Moravec, J. Prehled vegetace Ceské republiky. Svazek 3. Jehlicnaté lesy. red. J. Moravec. Academia, Praha, pp. 18-86.
Klika, J. 1936: Das Klimax-Gebiet der Buchenwälder in den Westkarpathen. Beihefte zum Botanischen Centralblatt, Abteilung B, Systematik, Pflanzengeographie, angewandte Botanik 55: 373-418.
Kliment, J., Jarolimek, I., Sibik, J. & Valachovic, M. 2004: Syntaxonomy and nomenclature ofthe communities of the orders Calamagrosti-etalia villosae and Adenostyletalia in Slovakia. Thaiszia - Journal of Botany 14(2): 93-157.
Kliment, J., Valachovic, M. (eds), Bernâtovâ, D., Dubravcovâ, Z., Jarolimek, I., Petrik, A., Sibik, J. & Uhlirovâ, J. 2007: Rastlinné spolo-censtvâ Slovenska. 4. Vysokohorskâ vegetâcia. Veda, Bratislava, 388 pp.
Kucera, P. 2007: Zâpadokarpatské smreciny: Ko-mentovany literârny prehl'ad. Thesis. Depon. in Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany, Bratislava, 222 pp.
Kucera, P. 2008: Remarks on higher-ranked syntaxa with Abies alba in Central Europe: their concepts and nomenclature. Hacquetia 7(2): 161-172. DOI: 10.2478/v10028-008-0009-0.
Kucera, P. 2010: Nomenclatural types of Picea abies syntaxa reported from Slovakia. Biologia (Bratislava) 65/5: 832-836. DOI: 10.2478/ s11756-010-0103-x.
Kucera, P. 2012: Vegetacny stupen smrecin v Zâ-padnych Karpatoch: rozsirenie a spolocen-stvâ. Botanickâ zâhrada UK v Bratislave, pra-covisko Blatnica, Blatnica, 342 pp.
Luquet, A. 1926. Essai sur la géographie botanique de l'Auvergne: Les associations végétales du Massif des Monts-Dores. Les Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 266 pp.
Matuszkiewicz, J. 1977: Przegl^d fitosocjologicz-ny zbiorowisk lesnych Polski. Cz. 4. Bory swier-kowe i jodlowe. Phytocoenosis 6(3): 151-226.
Matuszkiewicz, J. M. 2002: Zespoly lesne Polski. Wyd. 1., dodruk. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 360 pp.
Matuszkiewicz, W. 1964: Tymczasowa klasyfikac-
ja zespolow lesnych Polski. Materialy zakladu fitosojologii stosowanej U. W. 4: 1-5.
Matuszkiewicz, W. 1982: Przewodnik do oznac-zania zbiorowisk roslinnych Polski. Wyd. 1. Dodruk do wyd. z r. 1981. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 300 pp.
Matuszkiewicz, W. 2001: Przewodnik do ozna-czania zbiorowisk roslinnych Polski. Wyd. 2. Wydawnictwo naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 538 pp.
Meijer Drees, E. 1936: De bosvegetatie van de Achterhoek en enkele aangrenzende gebieden. H. Veenman & Zonen, Wageningen, 174 pp.
Moor, M. 1937: Prodromus der Pflanzengesellschaften: Prodrome des Groupements végétaux. Hauptred. J. Braun-Blanquet. Fasz. 4. Ordnung der Isoetetalia (Zwergbinsengesellschaften). Comité Internationale du Prodrome Phytosociologique. 24 pp.
Moravec, J., Husovâ, M., Neuhäusl, R. & Neu-hâuslovâ-Novotnâ, Z. 1982: Die Assoziationen mesophiler und hygrophiler Laubwälder in der Tschechischen Sozialistichen Republik. Vegetace CSSR, fada A 12: 1-296.
Oberdorfer, E. 1957: Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften. Gustav Fischer, Jena, XVIII, 564 pp.
Pawlowski, B. 1928: Guide des excursions en Pologne. I. Partie. Guide de l'excursion botanique dans les monts Tatras (Environs du lac „Morskie Oko" et du massif des „Czerwone Wierchy") accompagné de le caractéristique géobotanique générale des Tatras. Orbis, Krakow, 64 pp.
Pawlowski, B., Sokolowski, M. & Wallisch, K. 1928: Die Pflanzenassoziationen des Tatra-Gebirges. VII. Teil. Die Pflanzenassoziationen und die Flora des Morskie Oko-Tales. Bulletin International de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres, Classe des Sciences Mathématiques et Naturelles, Série B: Sciences naturelles 1927 Suppl. II.: 205-272 + app.
Pawlowski, B., Sokolowski, M. & Wallisch, K. 1929: Zespoly roslin w Tatrach. Czçsc VII. Ze-spoly roslinne i flora doliny Morskiego Oka. Rozprawy Wydzialu matematyczno-przyrod-niczego 67, dzial A/B, 1927: 171-311.
Tüxen, R. 1937: Die Pflanzengesellschaften Nordwestdeutschlands. Mitteilungen der Floristisch-soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft in Niedersachsen 3: 170 pp.
Tüxen, R. & Diemont, W. H. 1936: Weitere Beiträge zum Klimaxproblem des westeuropäischen
Festlandes. Veröffentlichungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins zu Osnabrück 23: 129-184.
Vlieger, J. 1937: Aperçu sur les Unités Phytosoci-ologiques Superiéres des Pays-Bas. Neder-landsch kruidkundig archief 47: 335-353.
Walas, J. 1933: Roslinnosc Babiej Gory. Mono-grafje naukowe 2: 1-68.
Wallnöfer, S. 1993: Vaccinio-Piceetea. In: Mucina, L., Grabherr, G., Wallnöfer, S. (eds) et al.: Die Pflanzengesellschaften Österrreichs. Teil III. Wälder und Gebüsche. Gustav Fischer, Jena, pp. 283-337.
Weber, H. E., Moravec, J. & Theurillat, J.-P. 2000: International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. 3rd ed. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 739-768.
Willner, W., Grabherr, G. (eds), Eichberger, Ch., Exner, A., Wilfried, R. F., Grabner, S., Heisel-mayer, P., Karner, P., Starlinger, F., Sauberer, N. & Steiner, G. M. 2007: Die Wälder und Gebüsche Österreichs: Ein Bestimmungswerk mit Tabellen. Elsevier, München, 2 Vols.
Received 10. 11. 2011 Revision received 27. 8. 2012 Accepted 30. 8. 2012