Nomencla u al e ision, p oposals (40–44) and
eques s (8–10) ega ding some syn axa o he
class Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice ea Klika in Klika e
No ák 1941
Fla ia Landucci1, Milan Chy ý1, S i lana Iemeliano a1,2, Ka eřina Šumbe o á3, Jean-Paul Theu illa 4,5
1 Depa men o Bo any and Zoology, Masa yk Uni e si y, B no, Czech Republic
2 M.G. Kholodny Ins i u e o Bo any NAS o Uk aine, Kyi , Uk aine
3 Ins i u e o Bo any o he Czech Academy o Sciences, B no, Czech Republic
4 Depa men o Plan Sciences, Sec ion o Biology, Uni e si y o Gene a, Chambésy, Swi ze land
5 Cen e alpien de Phy ogéog aphie, Fonda ion du Ja din bo anique Flo e-Alpe, Champex-Lac, Swi ze land
Co esponding au ho : Fla ia Landucci ( la [email protected])
Academic edi o : Fede ico Fe nández-González
Recei ed 8 Janua y 2025♦Accep ed 30 Sep embe 2025♦Published 25 No embe 2025
Abs ac
In he cou se o a comp ehensi e e ision o he syn axonomy and nomencla u e o he class Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice-
ea Klika in Klika e No ák 1941, i appea ed necessa y o esol e some nomencla u al issues in acco dance wi h he
In e na ional Code o Phy osociological Nomencla u e. In his a icle, we p esen i e p oposals and h ee eques s o
binding decisions. We also in oduce he name Oenan he alia aqua icae Hejný ex Landucci e al. o d. no ., he lec o-
ypes o he names Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926 nom. co ., Typho-Sci pe um muc ona i Tallon 1950, and Apion
nodi lo i Segal in Wes ho e Den Held 1969, and he neo ypes o he names Oenan ho aqua icae-Ro ippe um amphibiae
Lohmeye 1950 and Sc ophula io aqua icae-Apie um nodi lo i Maas ex Segal in Wes ho e Den Held 1969.
(40) Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926 nom. co . e cons. p opos.
Typus: Sa ich 1926a: 57 (holo ypus)
(=) Sci po-Ph agmi e um aus alis W. Koch 1926
Typus: Koch 1926: 47 (holo ypus).
(41) Ph agmi ion aus alis W. Koch 1926 nom. co . e cons. p opos.
Typus: Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926 nom. co . ( ypus cons. p opos.)
(42) Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926 nom. dub. p opos.
Typus: Koch 1926: 52, ab. V, ele é 1 (lec o ypus designa ed by Koska in Dengle e al. 2004: 371)
(43) Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe 1942 nom. dub. p opos.
Typus: Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926 nom. dub. p opos (Boe 1942: 240; holo ypus)
(44) Nas u io-Glyce ie alia Pigna i 1953 nom. dub. p opos.
Typus: Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe 1942 nom. dub. p opos. (Boe 1942: 240; holo ypus)
Taxonomic e e ence: POWO (2025).
Abb e ia ions: CCCN = Commi ee o Change and Conse a ion o Names; ICPN = In e na ional Code o Phy osocio-
logical Nomencla u e (Theu illa e al. 2021).
Copy igh Fla ia Landucci e al. This is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
License (CC-BY 4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and
sou ce a e c edi ed.
Vege a ion Classi ica ion and Su ey 6: 209–220
doi: 10.3897/VCS.146260
NOMENCLATURAL PROPOSAL
In e na ional Associa ion o Vege a ion Science (IAVS)
PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Fla ia Landucci e al.: Nomencla u al p oposals 40–44 and eques s 8–10210
Keywo ds
Binding decision, lec o ypus, ma sh ege a ion, neo ypus, nomen conse andum, nomencla u e, Ph agmi o-Magnoca i-
ce ea, phy osociology, ypus conse andum
In oduc ion
A o malized classi ica ion o he Eu opean ma sh ege a ion
was published by Landucci e al. (2020). Al hough a p elim-
ina y nomencla u e e ision was conduc ed p io o ha
publica ion, i s ocus was on he me hodological app oach o
classi ying ma sh ege a ion a he han on nomencla u e is-
sues. Consequen ly, mos syn axon names in ha publica ion
we e adop ed om o he sou ces, namely Mucina e al. (2016)
o syn axa o he p incipal anks abo e he associa ion and
Eu opean na ional syn heses o associa ions (e.g., Rodwell
1995; Ja olímek e al. 2008; Šumbe o á e al. 2011; Bo hidi e
al. 2012; Schaminée e al. 2017; Dubyna e al. 2019).
One yea la e , he 4 h edi ion o he In e na ional Code
o Phy osociological Nomencla u e (ICPN) was eleased,
in oducing se e al no el ies and changes ha a e ele-
an o he nomencla u e e ision p ocess (Theu illa e
al. 2021). This publica ion inspi ed us o s a a comp e-
hensi e e ision o all syn axa included in he class Ph ag-
mi o-Magnoca ice ea Klika in Klika e No ák 1941 as p e-
sen ed by Landucci e al. (2020). While his e ision is s ill
ongoing, he nomencla u al analysis e ealed some issues
ega ding se e al impo an and widely used names.
The aims o his pape a e (1) o p opose he conse a-
ion o wo names, namely Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich
1926 nom. co . and Ph agmi ion aus alis W. Koch 1926
nom. co ., wi h a conse ed ype, (2) o p opose he e-
jec ion o h ee names, namely Glyce io-Spa ganie um
neglec i W. Koch 1926, Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blan-
que e Sissingh in Boe 1942 and Nas u io-Glyce ie alia
Pigna i 1953 as nomina dubia; and (3) o eques a bind-
ing decision on he name-gi ing axa o he names Ph ag-
mi o-Magnoca ice ea, Typho-Sci pe um muc ona i, and
Typho-Schoenoplec e um abe naemon ani.
P oposals
P oposal (40) o conse e he name Ph agmi e-
um aus alis Sa ich 1926 nom. co . agains
Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926
The names Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926 [Koch 1926:
45–51] and Ph agmi e um communis Sa ich 1926 [Sa ich
1926a: 57] a e syn axonomic synonyms, bo h published in
he same yea : Koch’s associa ion was published in Ma ch
1926, while Sa ich’s appea s o ha e been eleased in he
la e hal o he yea . Sa ich au ho ed wo wo ks in 1926 –
Sa ich (1926a) and Sa ich (1926b) – bo h o which includ-
ed he associa ion Ph agmi e um communis. Al hough he
p ecise publica ion da es emain unce ain, eco ds om
he Na u al Sciences Lib a y o he Russian Academy o
Sciences in S . Pe e sbu g indica e ha he i s olume was
ecei ed by he S a e Cen al Book Chambe no la e han
July 1926. The o ewo d o he second olume explici ly
s a es he da e o 1 Decembe 1926. Acco ding o P inciple
IV and A icle 22 o he ICPN, he name Sci po-Ph agmi e-
um W. Koch 1926 has p io i y o e Ph agmi e um commu-
nis Sa ich 1926. Howe e , he name Sci po-Ph agmi e um
W. Koch 1926 p esen s se e al issues.
Despi e epo ing a holo ype domina ed by Ph agmi es
aus alis, Koch (1926: 45, 49) explici ly de ined his as a
concep ually b oad associa ion ha includes mul iple com-
muni ies, each domina ed by one o he ollowing species:
Ph agmi es aus alis [= P. communis], Typha angus i olia,
T. la i olia, Schoenoplec us lacus is [= Sci pus lacus is], and
Glyce ia maxima [= G. aqua ica]. Howe e , mos con em-
po a y au ho s ejec he concep o such a b oad associa-
ion, a guing ha s ands domina ed by a single all eme -
gen species a e ypically sha ply delinea ed and isually
dis inc om a dis ance. The e o e, hey p e e using na ow
associa ions domina ed by a single species. Tomaszewicz
(1973), who e ised he Sci po-Ph agmi e um in Poland,
was one o he i s au ho s o sugges ha his complex as-
socia ion epo ed by many Polish au ho s should be spli
in o se e al associa ions, namely “Ph agmi e um (Gams
1927) Schmale 1939”, “Sci pe um lacus is (Allo ge 1922)
Choua d 1924”, “Spa ganie um e ec i Roll 1922”, “Typhe um
la i oliae Soó 1927” and “Eleocha i e um palus is Schen-
nikow 1919”. O he au ho s ollowed he same idea, using
single-species domina ed communi ies named di e en -
ly han Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926. Fo example,
o designa e a plan communi y domina ed by Ph agmi es
aus alis, Rodwell (1995) and S ančić (2010) used he name
“Ph agmi e um aus alis (Gams 1927) Schmale 1939”,
while Oťaheľo á e al. (2001) and Tzone e al. (2009) used
“Ph agmi e um ulga is Soó 1927”; and Fe ez e al. (2011),
Šumbe o á e al. (2011), Dubyna e al. (2019) and Landucci
e al. (2020) used “Ph agmi e um communis Sa ich 1926”.
A simple sea ch on Google Schola e eals ha he
names Ph agmi e um aus alis and Ph agmi e um commu-
nis, along wi h hei unde lying concep , a e ci ed mo e e-
quen ly han Sci po-Ph agmi e um. Mo eo e , in he mos
ecen publica ions, Sci po-Ph agmi e um is mainly ci ed as
a p o pa e synonym o o he names. The mos ci ed name
is “Ph agmi e um communis (Gams 1927) Schmale 1939”,
al hough his is a la e synonym o Ph agmi e um aus a-
lis Sa ich 1926 nom. co . Since Šumbe o á e al. (2011)
ein oduced his o go en name in he book “Vege a ion
o he Czech Republic”, he name Ph agmi e um aus alis
Sa ich 1926 has gained p ominence and is he mos widely
used name in ecen publica ions (see Table 1).
Vege a ion Classi ica ion and Su ey 211
Some au ho s (e.g., Šumbe o á e al. 2011, p. 405; Del-
coigne and Thébaud 2018, p. 90) ha e sugges ed ha he
Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926 is a nomen ambigu-
um (A . 36), which may be ue when conside ing he ac-
companying desc ip ion and no jus he holo ype (Koch
1926: 47). While Ph agmi es aus alis domina es he ho-
lo ype (B aun-Blanque co e 3–5), he name was used
by Koch and by la e au ho s in a b oad sense o include
communi ies domina ed by species o he han Ph agmi es
aus alis ha some imes do no e en occu in he holo-
ype o Koch 1926. Fo example, Nedelcu (1967) includes
in he associa ion Sci po-Ph agmi e um ele és domina -
ed by Typha laxmannii ha do no include Ph agmi es
aus alis. In he da abase We VegEu ope (Landucci e al.
2015), he name Sci po-Ph agmi e um appea s in he o ig-
inal classi ica ion ield o ele és domina ed by Ph agmi es
aus alis, Glyce ia maxima, G. lui ans, Typha angus i o-
lia, T. la i olia, Equise um lu ia ile, Spa ganium e ec um,
S. neglec um, and Aco us calamus, mos ly da ed be ween
1940 and 1970. All hese ele és we e subsequen ly eclas-
si ied and enamed by se e al au ho s, na ional da abase
cus odians, o by Landucci e al. (2020).
The Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926 may also be
conside ed a nomen dubium (A . 37) (e.g., Delcoigne
and Thébaud 2018, p. 93) since Koch’s en i e diagnosis and
he wide ecological and geog aphical a ea o he holo ype,
ex ending o e app oxima ely 0.1 km2, om Schme ikon
o he mou h o he i e Anbach (Koch 1926: 48, 50), bo h
indica e ha he associa ion is in ac a ege a ion complex
ha comp ises se e al dis inc communi ies domina ed by
di e en species and ha he holo ype is no a single ele é
o a homogeneous a ea (Figu e 1). The e o e, i is impos-
sible o unequi ocally assign his name o one o he as-
socia ions ecognized oday (A . 37; Tomaszewicz 1973).
Al hough he s a us o Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch
1926 as an ambiguous o dubious name is deba able, i is a
ac ha his name has been concei ed and used o e e o
a e y b oad, mul i-species domina ed associa ion, in con-
as o Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926, which ep-
esen s a monospeci ic domina ed associa ion. Some au-
ho s, howe e , ha e used he name Sci po-Ph agmi e um
W. Koch 1926 exclusi ely o Ph agmi es aus alis-dom-
ina ed s ands, based on i s holo ype and nomencla u al
p io i y (P inciple IV, A icle 22 o he ICPN) (e.g., D ing
e al. 2002; Sanda e al. 2008). As a esul , he name cu -
en ly lacks a single, unequi ocal applica ion (Figu e 2a,
b). The e o e, o gua an ee he nomencla u e s abili y and
o cla i y he concep s behind he wo names, we p opose,
acco ding o A icle 52, o conse e he name Ph agmi e-
um aus alis Sa ich 1926 nom. co . [≡ Ph agmi e um
communis Sa ich 1926 nom. inep .] agains he name Sci -
po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926. This solu ion p e en s
Table 1. Numbe o esul s e ie ed om Google Schola on 8 h Sep 2025 when sea ching o Sci po-Ph agmi e um
s.l. and Ph agmi e um aus alis s.l. in all hei name a ia ions. Sea ches we e conduc ed o wo pe iods (1926–2010
and 2011–2025), excluding ci a ions.
Sea ch in Google Schola (excluded ci a ion) No. o esul s (1926–2010) No. o esul s (2011–2025) To al No. o esul s
Sci po-Ph agmi e um s.l. 663 449 1112
“Sci po-Ph agmi e um” 516 313 829
“Schoenoplec o-Ph agmi e um” 23 11 34
“Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926” 78 83 161
“Sci po-Ph agmi e um Koch 1926” 40 35 75
“Sci po lacus is-Ph agmi e um aus alis W. Koch 1926” 2 1 3
“Sci po lacus is-Ph agmi e um aus alis Koch 1926” 3 2 5
“Schoenoplec o-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926” 1 1 2
“Schoenoplec o lacus is-Ph agmi e um aus alis Koch 1926” 0 3 3
Ph agmi e um aus alis s.l. 1417 2202 3619
“Ph agmi e um aus alis” 545 1110 1655
“Ph agmi e um aus alis (Gams 1927) Schmale 1939” 69 98 167
“Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ič 1926” 1 128 129
“Ph agmi e um aus alis Schmale 1939” 18 31 49
“Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ic 1926” 0 15 15
“Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926” 0 16 16
“Ph agmi e um communis” 508 529 1037
“Ph agmi e um communis (Gams 1927) Schmale 1939” 78 83 161
“Ph agmi e um communis Schmale 1939” 14 13 27
“Ph agmi e um communis Soó 1927” 23 15 38
“Ph agmi e um communis on Soó 1927” 0 2 2
“Ph agmi e um communis Sa ič 1926” 0 47 47
“Ph agmi e um communis Sa ic 1926” 0 1 1
“Ph agmi e um communis Sa ich 1926” 10 10 20
“Ph agmi e um ulga is” 90 70 160
“Ph agmi e um ulga is Soó 1927” 30 24 54
“Ph agmi e um ulga is on Soó 1927” 31 10 41
Fla ia Landucci e al.: Nomencla u al p oposals 40–44 and eques s 8–10212
he use o Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926 o mono-
dominan associa ions. Cu en ly, his is a mino i y iew
among esea che s (see Table 1).
P oposal (41) o conse e he name Ph agmi ion
aus alis W. Koch 1926 nom. co . wi h a con-
se ed ype
In he same publica ion, Koch (1926) also desc ibed he
alliance Ph agmi ion communis W. Koch 1926 [Koch
1926: 45] and he o de Ph agmi e alia W. Koch 1926. The
Ph agmi ion communis only includes wo associa ions:
Sci po-Ph agmi e um and Glyce io-Spa ganie um ne-
glec i. The associa ion Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W.
Koch 1926 was designa ed as he holo ype o he alliance
Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe
1942 (Boe 1942: 241). The e o e, he Sci po-Ph agmi e-
um W. Koch 1926 is he only a ailable associa ion o be
chosen as he lec o ypus o he Ph agmi ion communis
acco ding o Recommenda ion 19A. Molina (1996: 30)
lec o ypi ied he Ph agmi ion wi h he Sci po-Ph agmi e-
um W. Koch 1926. Howe e , i Sci po-Ph agmi e um we e
o be conside ed a nomen dubium in he u u e, hen he
name Ph agmi ion communis would be a nomen dubium
wi h an impo an domino e ec , since he alliance Ph ag-
mi ion communis is he lec o ype (A . 20) o he name
Ph agmi e alia, and he la e o de is he holo ype o he
Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice ea. Consequen ly, in acco dance
wi h A . 38, he o de and class names would also be
nomina dubia. The e o e, o os e nomencla u e s abil-
i y, acco ding o A icle 53, we p opose conse ing he
Figu e 1. Illus a ion o he holo ype p o ided on p. 47 o Koch’s wo k. Koch’s map co esponds o a po ion (Ge man:
Teils ück) o he Sci po-Ph agmi e um o he igh o he mou h o Lin h Ri e , i.e., be ween Schme ikon and he
mou h o he Aabach Ri e . The igu e was aken om Koch (1926: 48) and localized on he 1923 Swiss opog aph-
ic map o he a ea (see inse ) (h ps://map.geo.admin.ch/#/map?lang= ¢e =2713861,1231594.35&z=7& opic=
ech&laye s=ch.swiss opo.zei eihen@yea =1923;ch.b s.gebaeude_wohnungs_ egis e , ;ch.ba .hal es ellen-oe , ;ch.
swiss opo.swiss lm3d-wande wege, ;ch. bs.schiessanzeigen, ;ch.as a.w).
Vege a ion Classi ica ion and Su ey 213
alliance name Ph agmi ion aus alis W. Koch 1926 nom.
co . [≡ Ph agmi ion communis W. Koch 1926 nom. inep .]
wi h he associa ion Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926
nom. co . as ypus conse andum.
P oposals (42–44) o ejec he names Glyce -
io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926, Glyce -
io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in
Boe 1942, and Nas u io-Glyce ie alia Pigna i
1953 as nomina dubia
The associa ion Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i was o igi-
nally desc ibed by Koch as a pa o he alliance Ph agmi-
ion communis and he o de Ph agmi e alia (Koch 1926:
18). Like Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926, he name
Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926 is p ob-
lema ic. Koch in ended his associa ion o encompass a
b oad uni composed o communi ies domina ed by se -
e al species, such as Spa ganium e ec um subsp. neglec um
[= S. neglec um] (occasionally me ged wi h S. eme sum by
some au ho s), Glyce ia no a a [= G. plica a], G. lui ans,
Ca ab osa aqua ica, Be ula e ec a [= Sium e ec um], Na-
s u ium o icinale, and Ve onica beccabunga (Koch 1926:
52–54, able V). In subsequen yea s, o he au ho s (e.g.,
Libbe 1932; Langendonck 1935; Tüxen 1937) also used
his name in a b oad sense.
Koch (1926: 52–54) speci ied ha his associa ion is
o en a one-laye ed plan communi y composed o all
eme gen species, wi h se e al a ian s de e mined by
di e ences in wa e le el and species composi ion. Occa-
sionally, he plan communi y can ha e wo laye s whe e
Nas u ium o icinale, Ve onica beccabunga, o o he small
hyd ophy es o m an aqua ic lowe laye . In one “impo -
e ished a ian ”, Nas u ium o icinale and Ve onica bec-
cabunga a e pa icula ly abundan (Koch 1926: 54).
Subsequen ly, B aun-Blanque and Sissingh in Boe
(1942: 240) sepa a ed he Glyce io-Spa ganie um om he
Ph agmi ion and c ea ed he new alliance Glyce io-Spa -
ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe 1942. They
ecognized wo associa ions wi hin his alliance: Glyce -
io-Spa ganie um neglec i and Helosciadie um nodi lo i (a
nomen nudum in Boe 1942), speci ying ha he Glyce -
io-Spa ganie um neglec i, wi h he ele és o Koch (1926),
Libbe (1932), Langendonck (1935), Tüxen (1937), and
Boe (1942), mus be conside ed he ype o he alliance.
Koska in Dengle e al. (2004: 371) selec ed ele é 1 in
able V on page 52 in Koch (1926) as he lec o ype o he
Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926. This selec-
ion aligns wi h he concep o a b oad associa ion because
no species is clea ly dominan o e he o he s. Howe e ,
his choice aises se e al issues. The ele é does no ep-
esen he mos common appea ance o he associa ion
acco ding o Koch’s desc ip ion (a single laye domina -
ed by all eme gen species). Ins ead, i ep esen s one
o he a ian s o Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i, a plan
communi y co-domina ed by he sho eme gen spe-
cies Nas u ium o icinale and he all eme gen species
Spa ganium e ec um subsp. neglec um. Koch explici ly
calls his ele é “Epilobium- eiche Va ian e”.
The co-dominance o Spa ganium e ec um subsp. ne-
glec um and Nas u ium o icinale in he lec o ype makes
Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i he i s alidly published
name o bo h communi ies domina ed by ei he Spa -
ganium e ec um subsp. neglec um o by Nas u ium o i-
cinale. Howe e , as men ioned abo e o Sci po-Ph ag-
mi e um, mos au ho s oday ejec he concep o a
b oad associa ion and ecognize communi ies domina ed
by Nas u ium o icinale as an independen associa ion
(Figu e 2 ) named by se e al au ho s as Nas u ie um o -
icinalis, which was i s alidly published by Gilli (1971)
(e.g., Gilli 1971; Jul e 1993; Be g e al. 2004; Angiolini
e al. 2005; Chi u e al. 2006; Ceschin and Sale no 2008;
Ja olímek e al. 2008; Las ucci e al. 2010; Fe ez e al.
2011; Šumbe o á e al. 2011; Bo hidi e al. 2012; Ta del-
la and Di Agos ino 2020). Ins ead, he use o he name
Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926 is es ic -
ed o communi ies domina ed by Spa ganium e ec um s.l.
(including S. e ec um subsp. e ec um, S. e ec um subsp.
mic oca pum, S. e ec um subsp. neglec um, S. e ec um sub-
sp. ooca pum) o only S. e ec um subsp. neglec um (e.g.,
Ho a e al. 1974; Pi one e al. 1997; Canullo e al. 1988;
Be g e al. 2004; Šumbe o á e al. 2011; Las ucci e al.
2014; Landucci e al. 2020; Zelnik e al. 2021). This makes
Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i a nomen dubium (A . 37)
because i is impossible o assign he name unequi ocally
o a single associa ion dis inguished oday.
In he ligh o Koch’s desc ip ion and he lec o ype se-
lec ed by Koska, he name Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i
W. Koch 1926 could also be conside ed a nomen ambigu-
um (A . 36), as i has o en been used in ecen decades
o communi ies s ic ly domina ed by Spa ganium e ec-
um subsp. neglec um, a he han o communi ies dom-
ina ed by mul iple species, hus excluding i s ype (e.g.,
Ho a e al. 1974; Be g e al. 2004; Šumbe o á e al. 2011;
Landucci e al. 2013; Las ucci e al. 2014; Fanelli e al.
2015; Landucci e al. 2020; Cas ello e al. 2021; Zelnik e
al. 2021; Vuko ić e al. 2022).
In any case, i Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W.
Koch 1926 is ejec ed as a nomen dubium, he alliance
Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe
1942 and he o de Nas u io-Glyce ie alia Pigna i 1953
will also become nomina dubia (A . 38). Unlike he
case o Sci po-Ph agmi e um and i s highe syn axa, we
do no ind any eason o p ese e he names Glyce io-
Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926, Glyce io-Spa ganion
B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe 1942, and Nas u io-
Glyce ie alia Pigna i 1953. On he con a y, accep ing
hese names as nomina dubia would help o esol e a
con o e sial syn axonomic si ua ion.
In ac , wha should be included in he alliance
Glyce io-Spa ganion is no as clea as i migh seem.
Communi ies domina ed by sho eme gen species such
as Nas u ium o icinale, Ve onica beccabunga, Be ula
e ec a, Helosciadium nodi lo um, o loa ing o ms o
Glyce ia lui ans, G. no a a, o Ca ab osa aqua ica a e
Fla ia Landucci e al.: Nomencla u al p oposals 40–44 and eques s 8–10214
o en unequi ocally classi ied in Glyce io-Spa ganion
due o hei equen co-occu ence and connec ion wi h
unning wa e . In con as , communi ies domina ed by
Spa ganium e ec um s.l. a e o en placed in Ph agmi ion
aus alis due o hei s uc u e domina ed by all
eme gen species, hei occu ence in gen ly unning o
s anding wa e s, and hei lack o sho eme gen species
cha ac e is ic o he alliance Glyce io-Spa ganion (e.g.,
G abhe and Mucina 1993; Šumbe o á e al. 2011; Fanelli
e al. 2015; Landucci e al. 2020; Cas ello e al. 2021; Zelnik
e al. 2021; Vuko ić e al. 2022).
Some au ho s seem o ha e assigned plan communi ies
domina ed by Spa ganium e ec um s.l. o Glyce io-Spa gan-
ion me ely o ul ill he exis ence o his alliance a he han
o a subs an i e eason. Fo ins ance, he plan communi-
y occu s in gen ly unning wa e , bu apa om Spa gani-
um e ec um s.l. he e a e no o he diagnos ic species o his
alliance (Molina 1996; Las ucci e al. 2010). In o he cases,
he species composi ion is consis en wi h a plan commu-
ni y o he Glyce io-Spa ganion, bu he s ands occu in
s anding wa e bodies (Las ucci e al. 2023).
Some au ho s (e.g., Géhu and Géhu-F anck 1987; Bo hi-
di e al. 2012; Biondi e al. 2014) p e e o ecognize wo al-
liances wi hin he o de Nas u io-Glyce ie alia: one o all
eme gen species, named Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blan-
que e Sissingh in Boe 1942, and one o sho eme gen
species, named Apion nodi lo i Segal in Wes ho e Den
Held 1969, Nas u ion o icinalis Géhu e Géhu-F anck
1987, o Nas u io-Ve onicion beccabungae Bo hidi 2001.
The syn axonomy o he o de Nas u io-Glyce ie alia
and i s lowe syn axa has always been somewha con o-
e sial due o i s pa ial concep ual o e lap wi h o he o -
de s such as Ph agmi e alia, Magnoca ice alia, and Oenan-
he alia aqua icae (Figu e 2c, d, e, ). Acco ding o Mucina
e al. (2016), he o de Nas u io-Glyce ie alia is de ined
as “He bland and sedge-beds o well-oxygena ed eshwa-
e lowing s eams o he empe a e and Medi e anean
egions o Eu ope and Madei a”, including he alliances
Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe
1942, Phala idion a undinaceae Kopecký 1961, Ca icion
b o e ianae (Ri as-Ma ínez e al. 1986) J. A. Molina 1996,
and Deschampsion a gen eae Capelo e al. 2000.
Ne e heless, he alliance Phala idion a undinaceae is
no unanimously accep ed as an independen alliance due
o he lack o diagnos ic species. The e o e, i s associa ions
a e o en placed in Ph agmi ion aus alis (Landucci e al.
2020). The Ca icion b o e ianae was o iginally included in
Magnoca ice alia due o i s species composi ion and phys-
iognomy (Molina 1996; Cos a e al. 2012). I was mo ed
o Nas u io-Glyce ie alia by Mucina e al. (2016) solely
because i occu s along wa e s eams. The Deschampsion
a gen eae was also o iginally classi ied wi hin Magnoca -
ice alia (Cos a e al. 2012) due o i s gene al physiognomy,
e en hough i s species composi ion does no seem o pe -
ain o ei he Magnoca ice alia o Nas u io-Glyce ie alia.
In ac , he e a e no Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice ea species a
all in his alliance (Landucci e al. 2020). The only alliance
ha unequi ocally belongs o Nas u io-Glyce ie alia is he
Glyce io-Spa ganion. This aises he ques ion o whe he i
is necessa y o dis inguish he o de Nas u io-Glyce ie a-
lia i he alliance and he o de a e concep ually iden ical.
I he Glyce io-Spa ganie um neglec i W. Koch 1926, he
Glyce io-Spa ganion B aun-Blanque e Sissingh in Boe
1942, and he Nas u io-Glyce ie alia Pigna i 1953 we e
ejec ed as nomina dubia, he communi ies domina ed by
Spa ganium e ec um s.l. ( ollowing he axonomic concep
o Píšo á and Fé 2020) could be named Spa ganie um e ec i
Philippi 1973 and assigned o Ph agmi ion aus alis. An al-
liance concep ually simila o Glyce io-Spa ganion is Apion
nodi lo i Segal in Wes ho e Den Held 1969, which includes
ege a ion domina ed exclusi ely by sho eme gen species
(such as Be ula e ec a, Helosciadium nodi lo um, Nas u ium
o icinale, Ve onica beccabunga) o loa ing o ms o a ew
all eme gen species (such as Glyce ia lui ans, G. no a a,
and Ca ab osa aqua ica) mainly de eloping in wa e s eams
and channels. This alliance could be classi ied in o he o de
Oenan he alia aqua icae, wi h which i sha es he s uc u e,
pa o he cha ac e is ic species, and ecology. Mechanical
dis u bances ela ed o wa e le el luc ua ions a e ypical o
all syn axa o he Oenan he alia o de ; howe e , dis u banc-
es by lowing wa e would be speci ic o Apion nodi lo i.
To a oid misin e p e a ions and u u e nomencla u e
p oblems, wo ac ions a e needed in his ega d.
a) Valida ion o he name Oenan he alia aqua icae He-
jný ex Landucci, Chy ý, Iemeliano a, Šumbe o á e
Theu illa o d. no .
The name Oenan he alia aqua icae Hejný ex Balá o á-
Tuláčko á, Mucina, Ellmaue e S. Wallnö e 1993, lis ed
as an accep ed name in he Eu oVegChecklis (Mucina
e al. 2016), is in ac in alid due o he absence o a
su icien diagnosis (A . 2b). In Balá o á-Tuláčko á e
al. (1993), he o de Oenan he alia aqua icae Hejný in
Kopecký e Hejný (1965) includes only one alliance, he
Oenan hion aqua icae Hejný ex Neuhäusl 1959, which is
in alid unde A icle 3 because he only alid elemen
in he o iginal diagnosis, he Calle um palus is Vanden
Be ghen 1952, does no include Oenan he aqua ica (L.)
Poi .
Fu he mo e, he name Oenan hion aqua icae Hejný
ex Neuhäusl 1959 canno be conside ed inciden ally
alida ed in Balá o á-Tuláčko á e al. (1993). Al hough
wo among he ou associa ions included in he
alliance a e alidly published (Oenan ho aqua icae-
Ro ippe um amphibiae Lohmeye 1950 and Sci pe um
adican is Hejný in Hejný e Husák 1978), no ype was
designa ed (A s. 3o and 5).
Addi ionally, he alliance name Eleocha i o palus-
is-Sagi a ion sagi i oliae Passa ge 1964, also epo -
ed as accep ed by Mucina e al. (2016), is in alid (A .
2b) because he o iginal diagnosis in Passa ge (1964)
includes only wo “Assozia ions-G uppe”, a ank no
go e ned by he ICPN (P inciple II, A icle 3c).
Ne e heless, a p e iously alidly published name
exis s ha co esponds o he same alliance: Oenan hion
aqua icae Hejný ex Viche ek 1962 [Viche ek 1962: 13].
Vege a ion Classi ica ion and Su ey 215
The o iginal diagnosis o his alliance includes a sin-
gle alidly published associa ion, he Oenan ho aqua -
icae-Ro ippe um amphibiae Lohmeye 1950 (Lohmeye
1950: 20), which also se es as he holo ype. We he eby
designa e he neo ypus o his associa ion (see nomen-
cla u e summa y).
Acco dingly, we o mally alida e he name Oenan-
he alia aqua icae Hejný ex Landucci e al. o d. no .,
wi h Oenan hion aqua icae Hejný ex Viche ek 1962 as
i s holo ypus hoc loco. The diagnos ic species (A . 8
No e 1) a e Oenan he aqua ica (L.) Poi . and Ro ippa
amphibia (L.) Besse .
b) Typi ica ion o he name Apion nodi lo i Segal in
Wes ho e Den Held 1969
We designa e he associa ion Sc ophula io
aqua icae-Apie um nodi lo i Maas ex Segal in Wes ho
e Den Held 1969 [Wes ho and Den Held 1969: 132]
(= Sc ophula ie o aqua icae-Helosciadie um nodi lo i
Maas 1959 nom. p o .) as lec o ypus hoc loco o Apion
nodi lo i Segal in Wes ho e Den Held 1969 [Wes ho
and Den Held 1969: 131]. The name used by Maas
(1959) is p o isional acco ding o A icle 3b because
Maas men ioned he name Sc ophula io aqua icae-
Helosciadie um nodi lo i on page 64, e e ing o
column 14 o able II, o an associa ion in calca eous
wa e s di e en om he ‘Calli iche o-Helosciadie um
nodi lo i’ o calca eous-poo wa e s, bu wi hou
explici ly accep ing bo h names. Indeed, Maas
conside ed ha u he esea ch was needed o see i
such a dis inc ion was necessa y and i i was p e e able
o Obe do e ’s classi ica ion. Mo eo e , in Maas’
able II, he wo associa ions a e no dis inguished
and a e combined unde he name ‘Helosciadie um,’
as in Obe do e ’s classi ica ion (1957), which Maas
ollowed, as he explici ly s a ed in bo h he English and
F ench summa ies on pages 148 and 157. Howe e ,
Segal in Wes ho e Den Held (1969: 131) inciden ally
alida ed his name.
We also pe o m he co ec ion and mu a ion o he
names Sc ophula io aqua icae-Apie um nodi lo i Maas ex
Wes ho e Den Held 1969 and Apion nodi lo i Segal in
Wes ho e Den Held 1969 acco ding o A icles 44 and
45. They become Sc ophula io au icula ae-Helosciadie um
nodi lo i Maas ex Wes ho e Den Held 1969 nom. co . e
nom. mu . no . and Helosciadion nodi lo i Segal in Wes -
ho e Den Held 1969 nom. mu . no ., espec i ely. The
name Sc ophula ia aqua ica auc . is cu en ly ea ed as a
synonym o S. oblongi olia Loisel (POWO 2025). How-
e e , i has equen ly been misapplied o S. au icula a
L. nom. cons., as documen ed in Eu o+Med (2006+). In
he o iginal desc ip ion o Sc ophula io aqua icae-Api-
e um nodi lo i, Wes ho and Den Held (1969) explici ly
equa ed S. aqua ica auc . wi h S. balbisii Ho nem., which is
now ecognized as a synonym o S. au icula a. The e o e,
he co ec ion o S. au icula a L. nom. cons. is jus i ied.
The species Apium nodi lo um (L.) Lag. is now included
in he genus Helosciadium W. D. J. Koch and is cu en ly
accep ed as H. nodi lo um (L.) W. D. J. Koch in mos lo as
and checklis s, e.g. Eu o+Med (2006+) and POWO (2025).
We also designa e a neo ypus o he name Sc ophula -
io au icula ae-Helosciadie um nodi lo i Maas ex Wes ho
e Den Held 1969 nom. co . e mu . no . (see nomencla-
u e summa y).
Reques s o a binding decision
Reques (8) o a binding decision on he
name-gi ing axon o he name Ph agmi o-
Magnoca ice ea Klika in Klika e No ák 1941
The name “Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice ea” Klika in Klika e
No ák 1941 [Klika and No ák 1941: 58] is well-es ablished
o he class ha includes eshwa e and b ackish ma sh
ege a ion ypes o Eu asia (Mucina e al. 2016). Howe e ,
he name looks so incomple e ha se e al au ho s al eady
ied o apply an in alid change (A . 3q), comple ing i o
Ph agmi o aus alis-Magnoca ice ea ela ae (e.g., T inajs ić
2008; de Foucaul and Ca eau 2012; Biondi e al. 2014;
Jasp ica e al. 2015; Spampina o e al. 2019). The 4 h edi-
ion o he ICPN in i es au ho s o submi p oposals o
he CCCN o he selec ion o name-gi ing axa o names
published be o e 1979, when i is unclea om he o igi-
nal diagnosis which species o in aspeci ic axon is he
name-gi ing axon (A . 40b).
In Klika and No ák (1941), he species Ph agmi es aus a-
lis (Ca .) S eud. (= P. communis T in.) is clea ly he only spe-
cies o he genus Ph agmi es p esen in he o iginal diagnosis
o he class. Howe e , se e al species o he genus Ca ex oc-
cu he e wi hou an indica ion o any speci ic name-gi ing
axon. The o de Ph agmi e alia W. Koch 1926 is he holo-
ype o he name Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice ea because i is
he only elemen men ioned in he o iginal diagnosis o he
class (A . 5). In Koch (1926), he o de con ained wo alli-
ances: “Ph agmi ion communis” and “Magnoca icion ela ae”.
The e o e, since he class name is o med by he union o he
wo alliance names Ph agmi ion communis [= Ph agmi ion
aus alis] and Magnoca icion ela ae, we eques a binding
decision o comple e he name “Ph agmi o-Magnoca ice ea”
wi h Ca ex ela a All. 1785, namely Ph agmi o aus alis-Mag-
noca ice ea ela ae Klika in Klika e No ák 1941.
Reques (9) o a binding decision on he name-
gi ing axon o he name Typho-Sci pe um
muc ona i Tallon 1950 (al e na i e o m: Typho-
Schoenoplec ielle um muc ona ae Tallon 1950
nom. mu . no .)
Tallon (1950) desc ibed he Typho-Sci pe um muc ona-
i as an associa ion domina ed by Sci pus muc ona us
and cha ac e ised by se e al species o he genus Typha
(T. angus i olia L., T. la i olia L., and T. laxmannii Lepech.).
He did no speci y he ype in his publica ion. He e, we
Fla ia Landucci e al.: Nomencla u al p oposals 40–44 and eques s 8–10216
designa e ele é 17 as he lec o ype and, based on i s spe-
cies composi ion, eques a binding decision o comple e
he name o Typho angus i oliae-Sci pe um muc ona i
Tallon 1950 acco ding o A . 40b. Typha angus i olia L.
1753 is he only species o Typha ha occu s in all ele és
o Tallon (1950), while he o he species o Typha ha e a
lowe cons ancy.
Cu en ly, he name-gi ing axon Sci pus muc ona us
L. 1753 is conside ed o belong o he genus Schoenoplec-
iella Lye, as Schoenoplec iella muc ona a (L.) J. Jung e H.
K. Choi, o ins ance, in POWO (2025) and Ba olucci e
al. (2018). The e o e, we pe o m he e he mu a ion o
he name Typho-Sci pe um muc ona i Tallon 1950 [Tal-
lon 1950: he single able a he end o he publica ion] o
Figu e 2. (a) Examples o eme gen ege a ion domina ed by Ph agmi es aus alis (ligh g een) and Schoenoplec-
us lacus is (da k g een), and (b) s ands o Glyce ia maxima and Schoenoplec us lacus is a Col io i o Ma shland
(I aly), which may be classi ied ei he as dis inc associa ions—Ph agmi e um aus alis, Schoenoplec e um lacus is,
Glyce ie um maximae—o collec i ely as a single associa ion: Sci po-Ph agmi e um. (c) Glyce io-Spa ganie um ne-
glec i accompanied by a Sagi a ia sagi i olia-domina ed communi y, along a low-cu en channel a Včelínek, Led-
nice (Czech Republic). (d) The same associa ion obse ed a Lake Tisza (Hunga y), co-occu ing wi h Ph agmi e um
aus alis and Typhe um angus i oliae. (e) Communi ies domina ed by sho eme gen species, including Helosciadi-
um nodi lo um, and ( ) Be ula e ec a, assigned o he Helosciadion nodi lo i alliance.
Vege a ion Classi ica ion and Su ey 217
Typho-Schoenoplec ielle um muc ona ae Tallon 1950 mu .
Landucci, Chy ý, Iemeliano a, Šumbe o á e Theu illa
nom. mu . no .
Reques (10) o a binding decision on he
name-gi ing axon o he name Typho-Schoeno-
plec e um abe naemon ani B aun-Blanque e
O. de Bolòs 1958
This associa ion, desc ibed by B aun-Blanque and Bolòs
(1958: 81–83), is e y simila o he Sci po-Ph agmi e um
Koch 1926, bu wi h Schoenoplec us abe naemon ani (C.
C. Gmelin) Palla 1888 ins ead o S. lacus is (L.) Palla
1888. Bo h Typha domingensis Pe s.1807 [= T. angus i olia
L. subsp. aus alis (Schumach.) K on . 1889] and T. la i o-
lia L. a e p esen in he ele és o he o iginal diagnosis.
The au ho s desc ibed ou a ian s, domina ed by Typha
la i olia, T. angus i olia subsp. aus alis (= T. domingensis),
Ph agmi es aus alis, and Schoenoplec us abe naemon-
ani, espec i ely. This associa ion was lec o ypi ied by
Molina (1996: 36), who indica ed ele é 28 in able 14
in B aun-Blanque and Bolòs (1958) as lec o ype. In he
same yea , Bolòs (1996: 65) designa ed as lec o ype o he
same associa ion ele é 13 o he same able. Acco ding
o he da es appea ing on he back co e s o bo h publi-
ca ions, Molina (1996) was published in June and Bolòs
(1996) in Decembe . The e o e, he i s lec o ypi ica ion
o Molina p e ails. Conside ing ha Typha domingensis
is he only Typha species p esen in he ype ele é and
ha i is also he second mos equen species in he a-
ble, we belie e ha comple ing he name Typho-Schoe-
noplec e um abe naemon ani B aun-Blanque e O. de
Bolòs 1958 wi h Typha domingensis is he mos app op i-
a e. Howe e , he axon used in he o iginal diagnosis is a
he subspeci ic ank (T. angus i olia subsp. aus alis) and
using T. domingensis (speci ic ank) ins ead co esponds
o a mu a ion (A . 45). The e o e, we eques a binding
decision o comple e he name o Typho aus alis-Schoe-
noplec e um abe naemon ani B aun-Blanque e O. de
Bolòs 1958, and in case he eques would be accep ed,
we p opose o mu a e he name using he speci ic ank
T. domingensis as his is he accep ed ank in POWO
(2025) and in Ba olucci e al. (2018).
Nomencla u al summa y
Ph agmi o aus alis-Magnoca ice ea ela ae Klika in Kli-
ka e No ák 1941
≡ Ph agmi o communis-Magnoca ice ales Klika in Klika e
No ák 1941 nom. inep . (A . 44)
Holo ypus: Ph agmi e alia W. Koch 1926
Ph agmi e alia aus alis W. Koch 1926 nom. co .
≡ Ph agmi e alia communis W. Koch 1926 nom. inep .
(A . 44)
Lec o ypus: Ph agmi ion aus alis W. Koch 1926 nom. co .
Ph agmi ion aus alis W. Koch 1926 nom. co . e ypus
cons. p opos.
≡ Ph agmi ion communis W. Koch 1926 nom. inep . (A . 44)
Lec o ypus: Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926
Typus conse andum p oposi um: Ph agmi e um aus a-
lis Sa ich 1926 nom. co .
Ph agmi e um aus alis Sa ich 1926 nom. co . e cons.
p opos.
≡ Ph agmi e um communis Sa ich 1926 nom. inep . (A . 44)
Holo ypus: Sa ich 1926a, p. 57; D ude scale (see below);
locali y: sho es o he Lake Imand a, Guba bay, Kola
Peninsula, RUS. Ph agmi es aus alis [sub P. communis]
Cop3, Ca ex lasioca pa Sp. Ca ex esica ia Sp., Equise um
lu ia ile [sub E. limosum] Sp, Menyan hes i olia a
Sol., T iglochin ma i ima Sol., Sco pidium sco pioides
(unspeci ied co e ).
D ude scale (co e ): Soc = socialis (> 90%), Cop3 =
copiosus 3 (70–90%), Cop2 = copiosus 2 (50–70%, Cop1
= copiosus 1 (30–50%), Sp = spa sus (10–30%), Sol =
soli a ius (< 10%), Un = unicum (a single indi idual).
= Sci po-Ph agmi e um W. Koch 1926
Holo ypus: Koch (1926), single ele é, p. 47.
Typho angus i oliae-Sci pe um muc ona i Tallon 1950
≡ Typho angus i oliae-Schoenoplec ielle um muc ona ae
Tallon 1950 mu . Landucci, Chy ý, Iemeliano a,
Šumbe o á e Theu illa nom. mu . no . (A . 40b, 45)
≡ Typho-Sci pe um muc ona i Tallon 1950
Lec o ypus hoc loco: Tallon 1950, sepa a e, non-num-
be ed able, el. 17.
Typho aus alis-Schoenoplec e um abe naemon ani
B aun-Blanque e O. de Bolòs 1958
≡ Typho domingensis-Schoenoplec e um abe naemon ani
B aun-Blanque e O. de Bolòs 1958 nom. mu . no .
Landucci, Chy ý, Iemeliano a, Šumbe o á e Theu illa
2025 (A . 45)
≡ Typho-Schoenoplec e um abe naemon ani B aun-
Blanque e O. de Bolòs 1958
Lec o ypus: B aun-Blanque e Bolòs 1958, p. 81–83,
ele é 28, able 14.
Oenan he alia aqua icae Hejný ex Landucci, Chy ý, Ie-
meliano a, Šumbe o á e Theu illa o d. no .
Holo ypus hoc loco: Oenan hion aqua icae Hejný ex
Viche ek 1962 [Viche ek 1962: 13]
= Oenan he alia aqua icae Hejný in Kopecký e Hejný
1965 nom. in al. (A . 3 )
= Oenan he alia aqua icae Hejný ex Balá o á-Tuláčko á,
Mucina, Ellmaue e S. Wallnö e 1993 nom. in al.
(A . 2b)
Oenan hion aqua icae Hejný ex Viche ek 1962
Holo ypus: Oenan ho aqua icae-Ro ippe um amphibiae
Lohmeye 1950
= Eleocha i o palus is-Sagi a ion sagi i oliae Passa ge
1964 (A . 2b)
