(2781) Stipa ucrainica P.A. Smirn. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 22: 374. 15 Jul 1926 [Angiosp.: Gram.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: Ukraine, former Ekaterinoslav Governorate/Province, near Mirgorodovka, steppe slope of Ternovaya Ravine [now in Zaporizhzhya Region, Vilnyansk District; original label in Russian], Alekhin 209 (MW barcode MW0591234; isotypi: MW barcodes MW0591232, MW0591233, MW0591235 & MW0591236).

(H) Stipa ucranica Roem. & Schult., Syst. Veg. 2: 340. Nov 1817, nom. rej. prop.

Typus: non designatus.

In the course of updating the information on selected species for the forthcoming fourth edition of the Red Data Book of Ukraine, we discovered that the currently accepted name Stipa ucrainica P.A. Smirn. (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 22: 374. 1926; see comments on typification below) is in fact a later homonym. That necessitated further investigation of the nomenclatural problem reported here and resulted in the present proposal.

Stipa ukranensis Lam. (Tabl. Encycl. 1: 157. 1791) was validated by Lamarck with a brief description (“S. aristis nudis rectis, calycibus subrufis semine longioribus”). The geographic provenance (“Ex Ukrania”), a local vernacular name (“Tirsa”) and a reference to an earlier publication by Guettard were provided as well. An amended and expanded description was provided later by Poiret (in Lamarck, Encycl. 7: 454. 1806), who also more precisely cited the second natural history memoir (entitled “Sur le Tirsa des Cosaques de l'Ukraine”) in the first volume of Guettard's Mémoires sur différentes parties des sciences et arts (Mém. Sci. Arts 1: 19–28, t. 1, 2. 1768).

IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/n/423847-1) currently lists the name Stipa ucranica as authored by Steudel (Nomencl. Bot. 1: 816. 1821). However, Roemer & Schultes (Syst. Veg. 2: 340. 1817) accepted the name S. ucranica (with the authorship attributed to Lamarck) before 1821 and cited the earlier descriptions of S. ukranensis (“Lam. Illustr. n 785. Poir. Enc. meth. VII. p. 454”). In fact, their new “corrected” spelling, S. ucranica Roem. & Schult. (l.c.), must be considered an illegitimate replacement name for the earlier‐described S. ukranensis. However, although illegitimate, the new name was validly published.

Trinius (Gram. Unifl. Sesquifl.: 187. 1824) mentioned S. ucranica in a note at the end of his treatment of Stipa and commented that that name was probably a synonym of S. capillata L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 116. 1762): “Stipa ucranica Guett., quam nemo Botanicorum nostratium novit, fortasse St. capillata est.” Later, Trinius & Ruprecht (Sp. Gram. Stipac.: 75. 1842; preprint from: Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.‐Pétersbourg, Sér. 6, Sci. Math., Seconde Pt. Sci. Nat. 7(2, Bot.): 1–189. Mar 1843) commented that “Stipa ucranica l. [abbr. for vel, or] ucranensis [sic!] Lamarck” was a very obscure name (“planta admodum dubia”) and noted that its description mainly matched that of S. capillata but that “S. ucranensis” from the herbarium of Desfontaines was either S. pennata L. (Sp. Pl.: 78. 1753) or a similar species. Ledebour (Fl. Ross. 4: 451. 1853) mentioned S. ukranensis Lam., with a question mark, in the synonymy of S. pennata. Tzvelev (in Fedorov, Fl. Evrop. Chasti SSSR 1: 327. 1974) cited “S. ucranensis Lam.” in the synonymy of S. capillata.

In our opinion, the two illustrations in Guettard (l.c.), which are parts of original material of S. ukranensis, despite being not particularly diagnostic, evidently show a plant either identical with S. capillata or at least very similar to it. Since there is only one widespread species of Stipa sect. Leiostipa Dumort. (Observ. Gramin. Belg.: 134. 1824) with such characters occurring in Ukraine, we assume that the species discussed by Guettard (l.c.) and described and validated by Lamarck (l.c. 1791) is indeed conspecific with S. capillata.

We are aware of at least one case of a pre‐1926 spelling (orthographic variant; see Art. 61.5 of the ICN: Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) “S. ucrainica Gesett [sic! meaning “Guett.”, Guettard – S.M.]” used by Montresor (in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou, n.s., 7: 475. 1894 [‘1893']) in his bibliographic comment on Trinius (l.c.); that spelling of the epithet is exactly the same as the one used later by Smirnov.

The name Stipa ucranica (or its orthographic variant S. ucrainica) was accepted or mentioned (in most cases with the authorship of Lamarck) in just a few publications prior to the description of a different species named S. ucrainica by Smirnov (l.c.). The latter belongs to Stipa sect. Stipa ser. Dasyphyllae Martinovský (in Preslia 47: 260. 1975; Vázques & Gutiérres in Telopea 13: 163–164. 2011), otherwise treated as the Stipa dasyphylla group (Martinovský in Tutin & al., Fl. Europ. 5: 250. 1980), and is not related to S. capillata. Smirnov (l.c.) in designating the type of his S. ucrainica wrote “Leg. prof. B. Alechin (Herb. Univ. Mosq.).” There are, however, five Alekhin specimens in MW from this locality, one of which (MW0591234, image available from https://plant.depo.msu.ru/open/public/ru/item/MW0591234; all online resources accessed 20 Sep 2020) is the only one bearing an identification label by Smirnov and the pencil note “Stipa ucrainica P. Smirn. (typus speciei!)”. It is formally designated here as lectotype (see recommendations by McNeill in Taxon 63: 1112–1113. 2014), but it was indirectly assumed to be the holotype in several earlier publications, e.g., Tzvelev (Zlaki SSSR: 588. 1976); Gubanov (Cat. Authent. Specim. Vasc. Pl. Herb. MW: 24. 1993; l.c., ed. 2: 33. 2002); Nobis & al. (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 105: 51. 2020).

According to Art. 53.2 of the ICN, the epithets ucranica and ucrainica should be treated as homonyms, by analogy with other toponymic epithets (ceylanicus and zeylanicus; chinensis and sinensis; thibeticus and tibeticus, etc.) listed in the voted Example 11 of Art. 53.2. Also, as explained in Art. 51.3 Note 2, a validly published earlier homonym (in our case, Stipa ucranica Roem. & Schult. and its orthographic variant S. ucrainica used by Montresor, see above), even if illegitimate, causes rejection of any later homonym (in our case, S. ucrainica P.A. Smirn.) that is not conserved.

Thus, the currently widely accepted name S. ucrainica P.A. Smirn. is an illegitimate later homonym and because of that this name, if not conserved, should be replaced by another name referable to the same species, most probably S. krascheninnikowii Roshev. (in Mat. Komiss. Eksped. Issl. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Kazakhst. 5: 253. 1928; see also Roshevitz in Komarov, Fl. SSSR [Fl. URSS] 2: 98. 1934) described from northwestern Kazakhstan, or S. dobrogensis (Prodan) Prodan (Fl. Român., ed. 2: 64. 1939 ≡ S. joannis Čelak. var. dobrogensis Prodan in Bul. Acad. Stud. Agron. Cluj 5(1) [Consp. Fl. Dobrog. 1]: 9. 1935 [‘1934']) described from Romania. Both these names have been accepted or even just mentioned in only a few publications; moreover, it is not evident that they indeed belong to the same narrowly circumscribed species.

The name S. ucrainica P.A. Smirn. was and is widely accepted in many floras, taxonomic treatments, and various other publications for the species occurring in the steppe zone from Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Romania through Moldova, southern Ukraine, southern European Russia to the Caucasus and western Kazakhstan (e.g., Grossheim, Fl. Kavkaza 1: 151. 1939; Roshevitz, l.c. 1934: 97; Lavrenko in Fl. URSR [Fl. Ukr. SSR] 2: 124. 1940; Morariu in Săvulescu, Fl. Republ. Socialist. Romania 12: 204. 1972; Tzvelev, l.c. 1974: 329; Klokov & Ossycznjuk in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Nizsh. Rast. 1975: 82. 1976; Slyusarenko in Prokudin & al., Zlaki Ukr.: 415. 1977; Martinovský, l.c. 1980; Tzvelev in Takhtajan, Konsp. Fl. Kavkaza [Consp. Fl. Cauc.]: 352. 2006; Apostolova & al. in Phytol. Balcan. 14: 257–262. 2008; Ştefănuţ in Roman. J. Biol. – Pl. Biol. 54: 149–156. 2009; Vázques & Gutiérres, l.c.; Nobis & al., l.c., etc.). Stipa ucrainica is also currently accepted in online databases, such as Plants of the World Online (http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:423846‐1), The World Checklist of Vascular Plants (https://wcvp.science.kew.org/taxon/423846-1), and The Euro+Med PlantBase (http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId=7710029&PTRefFk=7100000).

Stipa ucrainica has sometimes (e.g., in World Flora Online: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000902984) been synonymized under S. zalesskii Wilensky (in Isachenko, Dnevn. 1‐go Vserossiysk. Syezda Russk. Bot.: 41. 1921; later also accepted as S. ‘zalesskyi' by Grossheim in Trav. Mus. Georgie 3 [Grossh. & al., Fl. Tiflis. 1]: 36. 1925), probably because it was incorrectly assumed that Smirnov, being unaware of the valid publication of the name S. zalesskii before 1926, cited that name (incorrectly as “nom. nud.”) in synonymy of his new species, thus supposedly making S. ucrainica an illegitimate name. However, Smirnov (l.c.) added to the name S. zalesskii the words “pro parte” and thus clearly distinguished these two taxa by narrowing Wilensky's circumscription of S. zalesskii (see Art. 52.2 of the ICN).

Also, sometimes S. ucrainica has been treated as S. zalesskii subsp. ucrainica (P.A. Smirn.) Tzvelev (in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 11: 17. 1974; see also Tzvelev, l.c. 1976: 588), but most authors treat these two as distinct species (see references above). Moreover, it was recently convincingly confirmed that S. zalesskii and S. ucrainica are well distinguished both morphologically and genetically (Kopylov‐Guskov in Vestn. Moskovsk. Univ., Ser. Biol. No. 3: 49–52. 2012 [Engl. transl. in Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 67: 130–133. 2012]; Kopylov‐Guskov & Kramina in Byull. Moskovsk. Obshch. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol. 119: 46–53. 2014). The flowering time periods of these two species also differ considerably (Kopylov‐Guskov in Nauka Yuga Ross. [Sci. South Russia] 13(2): 91–93. 2017). Ecological and preliminary molecular data also favor a rather narrow circumscription of taxa in Eurasian Stipa (see Romaschenko in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 63: 480–494. 2006; Didukh & al. in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 73: 21–32. 2016).

Stipa ucrainica P.A. Smirn. is considered to be a threatened and/or rare species in need of conservation within its range in Ukraine (Tkachenko in Didukh, Chervona Knyha Ukrayiny: Rosl. Svit [Red Data Book of Ukraine: Pl.]: 263. 2009), Bulgaria (Petrova & Vladimirov in Phytol. Balcan. 15: 71. 2009; Petrova & al. in Peev, Red Data Book Rep. Bulg., digital ed. 2011–: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol1/Stiucrai.html), North Macedonia (Kabaš & al. in Phyton (Horn) 57: 37–45. 2018), Romania (Dihoru & Negrean, Cartea Roşie Pl. Vasc. România [Red Data Book Vasc. Pl. Romania]: 528–529. 2009), Moldova (Ghendov & al. in Conserv. Pl. Divers. (Chişinău) 2: 161–167. 2012), and several administrative units of Russia (Astrakhan, Rostov, Kursk regions, Kalmyk Republic; summary information in http://oopt.aari.ru/bio/45745).

Stipa ucrainica is a characteristic species of communities of the European Union habitat “62C0 Ponto‐Sarmatic steppes” (Eur. Commission, Interpr. Manual EU Habitats: 75. 2013) and of at least two main steppe habitats in Ukraine: “Т1.4 True forb‐bunchgrass and bunchgrass steppes” and “T6.1 Salt steppes” (Kuzemko & al., Natl. Habit. Cat. Ukraine: 133, 180. 2018). In Romania, S. ucrainica is a diagnostic species of the habitat “R3419 West Pontic steppes with Stipa ucrainica and Stipa dasyphylla” (Doniţã & al., Habit. România: 128. 2005). It is also a diagnostic species of several syntaxa of steppe vegetation (Dubyna & al., Prodr. Roslynn. Ukrayiny [Prodr. Veg. Ukraine]: 267, 270, 328. 2019). Plant communities of the Stipeta ucrainicae formation are listed as rare and protected in the Green Data Book of Ukraine (Tkachenko in Didukh, Zelena Knyha Ukrayiny, ed. 2: 220–222. 2009).

We think that changing the widely accepted name Stipa ucrainica P.A. Smirn., applied at present to a species of conservation concern that forms rare and threatened plant communities in the steppe zone of southeastern Europe and western Asia, will not serve nomenclatural stability and would be very inconvenient for botanists and confusing for other users of botanical information, especially those working in agriculture, nature and land management and conservation, etc. Because of this, we propose to conserve the name S. ucrainica P.A. Smirn. against its earlier homonym S. ucranica Roem. & Schult. (including its orthographic variant S. ucrainica used by Montresor, l.c.) under Art. 14 of the ICN.

（2781）Stipa ucrainica PA Smirn。在Repert中。规格 十一月Regni Veg。22：374。1926年7月15日[Angiosp：革兰。]，NOM。缺点 支柱。

Typus：乌克兰，前叶卡捷琳诺斯拉夫省/省，靠近Mirgorodovka，Ternovaya Ravine的草原坡[现位于维尔扬斯克地区Zaporizhzhya地区；俄文原始标签]，Alekhin 209（MW条码MW0591234；同型：MW条码MW0591232，MW0591233，MW0591235和MW0591236）。

（H）乌头针茅。＆Schult。，系统 素菜 2：340。1817年11月，标价。rej。支柱。

类型：非指定类型。

在为即将出版的《乌克兰红色数据手册》第四版更新有关选定物种的信息的过程中，我们发现当前接受的名称Stipa ucrainica PA Smirn。（在Repert Spec。Nov. Regni Veg。22：374. 1926中；请参见下面的典型注释）实际上是后来的同音异义词。这就需要对这里报告的命名问题进行​​进一步调查，从而得出了本提案。

乌克兰针叶林 （Tabl。Encycl。1：157. 1791）已由Lamarck验证，并带有简短说明（“ S. aristis nudis rectis，花椰菜半亚种”）。还提供了地理出处（“ Ex Ukrania”），当地白话名称（“ Tirsa ”）以及对Guettard早期出版物的引用。经修订和扩充的描述是由波烈稍后提供（在拉马克，7百科大全：454 1806），谁也更精确地列举了第二自然史实录（题为“苏尔乐Tirsa在第一宫Cosaques DE L'乌克兰”） Guettard的量回忆录河畔différentes方德科学等艺术（MEM科学艺术1：19-28，T 1，2，1768）。

IPNI（https://www.ipni.org/n/423847-1）当前列出了Steudel（Nomencl。Bot。1：816. 1821）所使用的名称Stipa ucranica。但是，Roemer＆Schultes（Syst。Veg。2：340. 1817）在1821年之前接受了S. ucranica（作者为Lamarck）这个名字，并引用了S. ukranensis的早期描述（“ Lam。Illustr。n 785”）。Poir。Enc。meth。VII。p。454 ”。实际上，他们的新“更正”拼写是S. ucranica Roem。＆舒尔特。（lc），必须被视为先前描述的ukranensis的非法替代名称。但是，尽管非法，但新名称已有效发布。

Trinius（Gram。Unifl。Sesquifl .: 187. 1824）在对Stipa的治疗结束时的注释中提到了S. ucranica，并评论说该名称可能是S. capillata L.（Sp。Pl。，ed。 2：116 1762）：“针茅ucranica Guett，尼莫华富Botanicorum nostratium Novit酒店，fortasse。圣capillata EST”。后来，Trinius＆Ruprecht（Sp。Gram。Stipac .: 75. 1842;预印本来自：Mém。Acad。Imp。Sci。St.Petersbourg，Sér.6，Sci。Math。，Seconde Pt.Sci。Nat.7 （2，博特。）：1-189 1843年3月）评论说，“针茅ucranica升。[缩写。为VEL，或] ucranensis[sic！] Lamarck”是一个非常晦涩的名称（“ planta admodum dubia”），并指出其描述主要与毛链球菌S. capillata相匹配，但来自Desfontaines的植物标本室的“ S. ucranensis ”是S. pennata L.（ Sp。Pl.：78。1753）或类似物种。累德堡（花期罗斯4：451 1853）中提到S. ukranensis榄，用问号，在同义。S.羽状。Tzvelev（在Fedorov，Fl。Evrop。Chasti SSSR 1：327. 1974）引用了“ S. ucranensis Lam”。在S. capillata的同义词中。

在我们看来，在Guettard两个插图（LC），其是原始材料的份数S. ukranensis，尽管是没有特别诊断，明显显示或者与相同植物S. capillata或至少非常相似的。由于仅有一种稀疏的针茅科。Leiostipa Dumort。（Observ。Gramin。Belg .: 134. 1824）具有这种特征在乌克兰发生，我们假设由Guettard（lc）讨论并由Lamarck（lc 1791）描述和验证的物种确实与S. capillata同种。

我们知道至少有一个案例发生在1926年之前的拼写中（正字变形；请参见ICN第61.5条：Turland等人，在Regnum Veg。159 . 2018中）“ S. ucrainica Gesett [sic！意思是“ Guett。”，Guettard – SM]”，在他对Trinius（lc）的书目评论中，蒙特雷索使用（在Bull。Soc。Imp。Naturalistes Moscou，ns，7：475. 1894 ['1893']中使用）；该称谓的拼写与Smirnov后来使用的拼写完全相同。

在Smirnov（lc）描述另一种名为S. ucrainica的物种之前，仅在少数出版物中就接受或提到了Stipa ucranica（或其正字变种S. ucrainica）（在大多数情况下为Lamarck的著作）。后者属于针茅科。针茅SER。DasyphyllaeMartinovský（于Preslia 47：260。1975；Vázques＆Gutiérres在Telopea 13：163-164。2011），否则被视为Stipa dasyphylla组（Tutin等人的Martininovský，Fl。Europ。5 ：250. 1980）。 ，与毛链球菌无关。Smirnov（lc）指定他的葡萄链球菌的类型写道“腿 教授 B. Alechin（草药大学）。” 但是，该地区有5个MW的Alekhin标本，其中一个（MW0591234，图像可从https://plant.depo.msu.ru/open/public/ru/item/MW0591234获得；所有在线资源均可访问20 2020年9月）是唯一带有Smirnov识别标签和铅笔字样“ Stipa ucrainica P. Smirn。”的标签。（typus speciei！）”。它在这里被正式指定为选型（参见McNeill在Taxon 63：1112-1113。2014中的建议），但是在一些较早的出版物中，例如Tzvelev（Zlaki SSSR：588. 1976），它被间接假定为全选。Gubanov（Cat。Authent。Specim。Vasc。Pl。Herb。MW：24. 1993; lc，ed。2:33。2002）; Nobis等 （Ann.Missouri Bot.Gard.105：51.2020）。

根据艺术。在ICN的53.2中，应将ucranica和ucrainica这样的上皮词当作同音异义词，与其他已投票的实例11中列出的其他地名上皮词（ceylanicus和zeylanicus ; chinensis和sinensis ; thibeticus和tibeticus等）进行类比。53.2。另外，如Art中所述。51.3注释2，一个有效发布的较早的谐音（在本例中为Montresor使用的Stipa ucranica Roem。＆Schult。及其正交变体S. ucrainica，请参见上文），即使是非法的，也导致对任何较晚的谐音的拒绝（在本例中） ，S. ucrainica PA Smirn。）不保守。

因此，目前广为接受的名称是S. ucrainica PA Smirn。是一个非法的稍后同音异义词，因此，如果不保守，则应将该名称替换为另一个引用相同物种的名称，最可能是S. krascheninnikowii Roshev。（在Mat。Komiss。Eksped。Issl。Akad。Nauk，Ser。Kazakhst。5：253. 1928中；另请参见Komarov，Roshevitz在佛罗里达州的SSSR [Fl。URSS] 2：98. 1934），从哈萨克斯坦西北部描述，或S. dobrogensis。（普罗丹）普罗丹（FL罗马编2：64. 1939≡  S. joannis。Čelak变种dobrogensis布尔中的Prodan。学院 梭哈 阿格隆 克鲁5（1）[对。图 多布罗格。1]：9。罗马尼亚描述了1935年['1934']）。这两个名称仅在少数出版物中就被接受甚至提到。此外，尚不清楚它们确实属于相同的狭义外接物种。

名字S. ucrainicaPA Smirn。早先在保加利亚，北马其顿和罗马尼亚，摩尔多瓦，乌克兰南部，俄罗斯南部欧洲，高加索和哈萨克斯坦西部（例如格罗斯海姆）的草原地区，该物种被许多植物区系，分类学处理和其他各种出版物广泛接受。 ，Fl。Kavkaza 1：151。1939； Roshevitz，lc 1934：97； Lavrenko在URSR中[Fl。Ukr。SSR] 2：124。1940； Morariu在Săvulescu，Fl。Republ。Socialist。Romania 12：204。 1972; Tzvelev，lc 1974：329; Klokov＆Ossycznjuk在Novosti Sist。Vyssh。Nizsh。Rast。1975：82. 1976; Slyusarenko在Prokudin等人，Zlaki Ukr .: 415. 1977;Martinovský，LC 1980; Tzvelev在Takhtajan，Konsp。Fl。Kavkaza [Consp。Fl。Cauc。]：352。2006； Apostolova等在Phytol.Balcan。14：257-262.2008 ；;tefănuţ在Roman.J。Biol。– Pl。Biol。 54：149-156。2009；瓦兹克斯和古铁雷斯（LC）；Nobis等人，lc等）。目前，在线数据库也接受了Stipa ucrainica，例如世界植物在线（http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:423846-1），《世界血管清单》。植物（https://wcvp.science.kew.org/taxon/423846-1）和Euro + Med PlantBase（http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId=7710029&PTRefFk=7100000） 。

针茅ucrainica具有有时（例如，在世界植物在线：http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000902984）下被使用同义词S. zalesskii。威伦斯基（在Isachenko，Dnevn 1-去Vserossiysk Syezda Russk机器人。 ：41. 1921年;后来也接受为小号' zalesskyi通过Grossheim在状育苗盘亩乔治3'[Grossh＆人，FL梯弗里斯1。。]：36. 1925），可能是因为它被错误地假设Smirnov并未意识到S. zalesskii这个名字的有效公布，而是在1926年之前引用了这个名字（不正确地表示为“ nom。nud。”），以此作为他的新物种的同义词，因此据说ucrainica是一个非法名字。但是，Smirnov（lc）添加到了S. zalesskii名称中“赞成”一词，因此通过缩小Wilensky对S. zalesskii的限制来清楚地区分这两个分类群（参见ICN第52.2条）。

同样，有时将小葡萄球菌视为zalesskii亚种。ucrainica（PA Smirn。）Tzvelev（在Novosti Sist。Vyssh。Rast。11：17. 1974；另请参见Tzvelev，lc 1976：588），但大多数作者将这两个视为不同的物种（请参见上面的参考文献）。此外，最近令人信服地证实了扎氏链球菌和小葡萄球菌。在形态和遗传学上都有很好的区别（2012年，在Vestn。Moskovsk。Univ。，Ser。Biol。No. 3：49–52。中的Kopylov‐Guskov。 ––133。2012]；科比洛夫·古斯科夫（Kopylov‐Guskov）和克拉米娜（Kramina），位于比尔（Byull）。这两个物种的开花期也有很大差异（Nauka Yuga Ross的Kopylov-Guskov。[俄罗斯南部科学] 13（2）：91–93。2017）。生态学和初步的分子数据也有利于欧亚针茅类群的较窄界限（见Romaschenko在Ukrayins'k。Bot。Zhurn。63：480-494。2006; Didukh等人在Ukrayins'k。Bot。Zhurn。73 ：21–32。2016）。

Stipa ucrainica PA Smirn。在乌克兰被认为是需要保护的濒危和/或稀有物种（Tidukh中的Tkachenko，Chervona Knyha Ukrayiny：Rosl。Svit [乌克兰红色数据手册：Pl。]：263。2009），保加利亚（ Petrova＆Vladimirov在Phytol。Balcan。15：71。2009； Petrova等在Peev，红色数据书出版社Bulg。，数字版，2011–：http：//e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en /vol1/Stiucrai.html），北马其顿（卡巴什（Kabaš）等人，在Phyton（霍恩）57：37–45。2018），罗马尼亚（Dihoru＆Negrean，CarteaRoşiePl。Vasc。România[红色数据书Vasc。Pl。罗马尼亚]：528-529年（2009年），摩尔多瓦（Ghendov等人，在Conserv。Pl。Divers。（基希讷乌）2：161-167。2012年），以及俄罗斯的几个行政单位（阿斯特拉罕，罗斯托夫，库尔斯克地区，卡尔梅克共和国；摘要信息请参见http://oopt.aari.ru/bio/45745）。

针茅（Stipa ucrainica）是欧盟栖息地“ 62C0 Ponto-Sarmatic草原”（欧洲委员会，欧洲人居手册手册：75。2013）和乌克兰至少两个主要草原栖息地的特征物种：“Т1.4真正的长鼻草和束草草原”和“ T6.1盐草原”（Kuzemko等人，Natl。Habit。Cat。Ukraine：133，180. 2018）。在罗马尼亚，S。ucrainica是栖息地“ R3419西蓬地草原，带有Stipa ucrainica和Stipa dasyphylla的诊断物种”（Doniţã等人，Habit。România：128。2005年）。它也是草原植被的几种语法的诊断物种（Dubyna等人，Roslynn。Ukrayiny教授[乌克兰，Prodr。Veg。]：267，270，328. 2019）。乌克兰绿色数据手册中列出了稀有的针形针茅植物的植物群落（Tkachenko in Didukh，Zelena Knyha Ukrayiny，第2版：220–222。2009）。

我们认为，更改目前广为接受的名称Stipa ucrainica PA Smirn。，该名称目前应用于东南欧和西亚草原地区形成稀有和受威胁植物群落的保护物种，将不会为命名带来稳定性，因此非常有用。给植物学家带来不便，并使其他植物学信息使用者感到困惑，尤其是那些从事农业，自然，土地管理和保护等工作的人。因此，我们建议保留S. ucrainica PA Smirn这个名字。反对其早期的同音字S. ucranica Roem。＆舒尔特。（包括Montresor，lc使用的正交变体S. ucrainica）。ICN的14 。