Dianthus

Primary tabs

Dianthus

Dianthus L., Sp. Pl.: 409. 1753 sec. Fassou & al. 2022 [& Gen. Pl. ed. 5: 191. 1754], [Type designated by Britton & Brown (Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 73 1913); affirmed by Hitchcock (in Sprague, Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 155. 1929)]. 1
  • ≡Caryophyllus Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [textus s.n.]. 1754, nom. illeg., syn. sec. IPNI 2000+: 9 nov 20213,2
  • ≡Caryophyllus Tourn. ex Moench, Methodus: 58. 1794, nom. illeg., syn. sec. POWO 2017+4
    • 1. Fassou, G., Korotkova, N., Nersesyan, A., Koch, M. A., Dimopoulos, P. & Borsch, T. 2022: Taxonomy of Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae) – overall phylogenetic relationships and assessment of species diversity based on a first comprehensive checklist of the genus. – PhytoKeys 196: 91-214. http://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.196.77940, 2. later homonym, 3. IPNI 2000+: International Plant Names Index. – The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries and Australian National Botanic Gardens – http://www.ipni.org: 9 nov 2021, 4. POWO 2017+: Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. – http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org
    • =Velezia L., Sp. Pl.: 332. 1753 syn. sec. Fassou & al. 2022 [& Gen. Pl. ed. 5: 191. 1754]. 5
    • 5. Fassou, G., Korotkova, N., Nersesyan, A., Koch, M. A., Dimopoulos, P. & Borsch, T. 2022: Taxonomy of Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae) – overall phylogenetic relationships and assessment of species diversity based on a first comprehensive checklist of the genus. – PhytoKeys 196: 91-214. http://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.196.77940
    • =Fiedleria Rchb., Icon. Fl. German. 6: 42. 1844 syn. sec. Rabeler, R. K.: Caryophyllaceae checklist. - published online at caryophylalles.org6
    • 6. Rabeler, R. K.: Caryophyllaceae checklist. - published online at caryophylalles.org
    • =Dianthella Clauson ex Pomel, Mat. Fl. Atl.: 9. 1860 syn. sec. Fassou & al. 20227
    • 7. Fassou, G., Korotkova, N., Nersesyan, A., Koch, M. A., Dimopoulos, P. & Borsch, T. 2022: Taxonomy of Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae) – overall phylogenetic relationships and assessment of species diversity based on a first comprehensive checklist of the genus. – PhytoKeys 196: 91-214. http://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.196.77940
    • –Plumaria Opiz, Seznam: 75. 1852, nom. inval., nom. nud., syn. sec. ???8
    • 8. 
    • –Cylichnanthus Dulac, Fl. Hautes-Pyrénées: 260. 1867, nom. inval., nom. superfl., syn. sec. Madhani & al. 20189
    • 9. Madhani, H., Rabeler, R. K., Pirani, A., Oxelman, B., Heubl, G. & Zarre, S. 2018: Untangling phylogenetic patterns and taxonomic confusion in tribe Caryophylleae (Caryophyllaceae) with special focus on generic boundaries. – Taxon 67(1): 83-112. http://doi.org/10.12705/671.6
    • –Diosanthos St.-Lag. in Ann. Soc. Bot. Lyon 7: 87. 1880, nom. inval., syn. sec. Kew WCVP (2019)11,10
    • 10. orthographic variant, 11. Kew WCVP (2019)

    Content

    Distribution (General)

    Europe, Asia, and Africa, especially in Mediterranean regions; introduced in North and South America, Hawaii, and Australia.

    Description

    Annual or perennial herbs, rarely subshrubs; leaves grass-like, often linear to oblong (ovate); flowers mostly hermaphrodite or rarely unisexual, solitary or in capitate (rarely paniculate or monochasial) cymes, often subtended by bracts, and calyx mostly subtended by two or many epicalyx scales; calyx tubular with 20–60 parallel veins, without membranous commissures or rarely 5- to 15-veined (former Petrorhagia spp. and Velezia rigida) and sometimes with membranous commissures (former Petrorhagia spp.), 5-toothed; petals white, pink or red, rarely yellow, limb entire, toothed or fimbriate, without coronal scales; stamens 10; styles 2; ovary on a short gynophore; capsule opening by 4 teeth; seeds many, peltate; embryo straight; 2n = 26 (Dianthus tunicoides), 28, 30, 60, 90; species more than 300.A

    Citation

    Fassou, G., Korotkova, N., Nersesyan, A., Koch, M. A., Dimopoulos, P. & Borsch, T. 2022: Taxonomy of Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae) – overall phylogenetic relationships and assessment of species diversity based on a first comprehensive checklist of the genus. – PhytoKeys 196: 91-214. http://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.196.77940

    Bibliography

    A. Madhani, H., Rabeler, R. K., Pirani, A., Oxelman, B., Heubl, G. & Zarre, S. 2018: Untangling phylogenetic patterns and taxonomic confusion in tribe Caryophylleae (Caryophyllaceae) with special focus on generic boundaries. – Taxon 67(1): 83-112. http://doi.org/10.12705/671.6