Recent inputs to the Lebanese orchid flora and proposal of a national checklist for Orchidaceae family

Abstract

Since the publication of the last Lebanese and Syrian classical flora, the only complete work on Lebanese flora is an illustrated book based on the same taxonomy and nomenclature with a few exceptions and some additions. Specifically on the Lebanese orchids, one book has illustrated orchids in the field with an unusual taxonomic point of view. Several Euro-Mediterranean monographs propose a conflicting taxonomy that is not always useful in identifying living specimens. Several years of exploration throughout Lebanon allowed the authors to build considerable knowledge of the orchid flora and its taxonomy. Other works made on adjacent areas completed the investigations and provided some useful indications to build taxonomic understanding and compile a preliminary checklist of Orchidaceae. Historical nomenclature was reanalysed from a modern point of view; recent critical appellations were confronted with biogeography and integrative evolutionary taxonomy, and some poorly known taxa are highlighted and their taxonomy is reinvestigated. A total of 51 species and subspecies are listed for Lebanon. Two new chorological records for Lebanon (Epipactis helleborine “subsp. praecox” nom. provis.; Ophrys alasiatica) and four new nomenclatural combinations (Androrchis × ehdenica, Epipactis helleborine subsp. turcica, Ophrys episcopalis subsp. libanotica, Serapias vomeracea subsp. levantina) are presented. At least 14 taxa are regionally endemic, seven of which are limited to two border countries, the other seven being too poorly known for conclusions about their biogeography.

Keywords:

• biogeography
• endemism
• flora of Lebanon
• nomenclatural novelties
• Orchidaceae
• synonymic checklist
• taxonomy
• Epipactis helleborine “subsp. praecox” nom. provis
• Ophrys alasiatica
• Androrchis × ehdenica; Epipactis helleborine subsp. turcica
• Ophrys episcopalis subsp. libanotica
• Serapias vomeracea subsp. levantina

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Historical background

The last Lebanese and Syrian classical flora was published by Mouterde (1966–1984) and the first volume including Orchidaceae family is dated from 1966. After this publication, the only complete work on Lebanese flora is an illustrated book (Tohmé and Tohmé 2007, 2014) based on the same taxonomy and nomenclature. In this book, the authors added new records of several species from Lebanon, mainly exotic species recently introduced and/or naturalized. Specifically on Orchidaceae, one book has illustrated Lebanese orchids in the field (Haber and Semaan-Haber 2009) with many novelties suggested for Lebanon, but without any discussion. In contrast, numerous works specializing in the taxonomy of orchids from Lebanon or from the Levant area were recently published (Kreutz 1998, 2004, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2014; Schönfelder and Schönfelder 2001; Kreutz, Segers, and Walraven 2002; Baumann and Baumann 2005a, 2005b; Shifman 2008, 2014). The only study proposing a revised, although partial, checklist for Lebanon and Syria is by Kreutz (2006), but it is limited to the taxa encountered by him and is now outdated. The only other work proposing a national checklist is the World Checklist of Selected Plant families (Govaerts et al. 2010), which is used as a reference for the Euro+Med Plant Base. However, this work does not distinguish among the species found in Lebanon and Syria and taxonomic choices are made without argumentation.

A common question is “How many distinct orchids are present in Lebanon?” Beyond the nomenclatural changes due to recent synonymies, species complexes of difficult genera such as Ophrys, Serapias, Dactylorhiza and Epipactis make this apparently simple question a problem that is difficult to resolve. According to historical bibliography, the known orchid diversity in Lebanon was quite stable during the twentieth century, and then became more complicated because of conflicting bibliographical sources (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of orchid taxonomic entities (species and/or infraspecific) in Lebanon, Syria and Levant area following bibliography.

Number of orchids	Syria+Lebanon (or Levant)		Lebanon only
Bibliographical source	Species rank only	Specific + infraspecific entities	Species rank only	Specific + infraspecific entities
Post (1896)	–38	–42	–	–
Post & Dinsmore (1932)	–60	–73	43	47
Mouterde (1966)	42	46	38	42
Kreutz (2006), *not exhaustive	39*	44*	32*	34*
Haber & Semaan Haber (2009)	–	–	69	85
Euro+Med / W.C.S.P. (Govaerts et al. 2010 / 2014)	46	54	–	–
Tohmé & Tohmé (2014)	–	–	41	44

^* Acts as a reminder that Kreutz’s list is a personal field inventory and not an exhaustive compilation based on historical bibliography.

Our main objective is to check and synthesize all the recent additions on Lebanese orchid flora, based on bibliography and our own findings.

Methodology

Since 2010, numerous field trips were made by J. Viglione throughout the whole country, during all seasons, in order to inventory, photograph and reassess the taxonomy of orchids from Lebanon. Several field trips made by E. Véla in the Mount Lebanon area since 2013 allowed us to partially complete our iconographical and morphological database.

The main complementary iconographical data are represented by the field photographs published by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) and Tohmé and Tohmé (2007, 2014), which are here examined in the light of recent taxonomic references and the biogeography of Mediterranean orchids. We established synonymic correspondences between new names and previous floras (at least with Mouterde 1966, eventually to Post and Dinsmore 1932 and Thiébaut 1953 where useful), and the recent book on orchids of Lebanon (Haber and Semaan Haber 2009). Another similar work was published on orchids from Israel/Palestine (Shifman 2004) and has also been taken into consideration.

Beside these monographic books, the most interesting work published on Lebanese and Syrian orchids is the list published by Kreutz (2006) with a global Mediterranean taxonomic perspective. Unfortunately, this list is not exhaustive and concerns only the taxa seen by him, making it particularly informative about the current status of native orchids. All the other nomenclatural novelties are also considered, especially the important work of Baumann and Baumann (2005a).

Based on bibliography, recent inputs for the Lebanon Orchid flora are analysed following three kinds of records:

(1)	Chorological discovery: a new plant is observed for the first time in the country. It can be a newly established plant, but is generally only the result of previous under-exploration.
(2)	Taxonomic splitting: species previously known as well defined, are currently considered to be two or several distinct taxa.
(3)	Nomenclatural changes: a taxonomic re-evaluation of closely related taxa produces changes in a plant’s name without changing either its local definition or its delimitation.

To build a taxonomic framework, three kinds of synonymies have to be considered:

(4)	Nomenclatural or homotypic synonyms [preceded by ≡]: the names based on the same type specimen and using in diverse combinations the first given epithet (basionym) or a replaced name.
(5)	Taxonomic or heterotypic synonyms [preceded by =]: the names based on different type specimens, but recognized as synonyms by the taxonomist.
(6)	Misapplied names or false synonyms [preceded by –]: the names used in floras or specialized publications, considered to be misapplied in the studied country, and replaced by the another adequate name.

Based on these concepts, we have compiled an up-to-date checklist of Lebanese orchids, including all classical and modern synonyms.

Results

The taxa recognized for the flora of Lebanon are presented below in alphabetical order. Note that the classical genus Orchis has been split into five genera (Dactylorhiza on the one hand, Anacamptis, Androrchis, Neotinea and Orchis s.s. on the other) following the molecular phylogenies, the presence of natural hybrids and micromorphology (Bateman, Pridgeon, and Chase 1997; Tyteca et al. 2012).

The orthography of scientific names and their authorities follow the World Checklist of Orchidaceae (Govaerts et al. 2014).

Anacamptis collina (Banks & Sol. ex Russell) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase

≡ Orchis collina Banks & Sol. ex Russell

= Orchis saccata Ten. var. pheniciensis J.Thiébaut, nom. nud. ?

This typically widespread but rare species is very variable in flower colour intensity, although it shows little taxonomic variation, at least in Lebanon. During our fieldwork, we encountered it only twice (at Bent Jbail and Faraya).

Anacamptis coriophora subsp. fragrans (Pollini) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase

≡ Orchis coriophora subsp. fragrans (Pollini) K. Richt.

≡ Anacamptis fragrans (Pollini) R.M.Bateman

– Orchis coriophora auct. liban., non L.

This subspecies is the only one considered present in Lebanon and the whole Levant (cf. Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). Old mentions of subsp. coriophora in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine (cf. Post and Dinsmore 1932) were most likely confusions with subsp. fragrans. The nearest confirmed localities of subsp. coriophora are illustrated from Turkey (Kreutz 1998).

Anacamptis israelitica (H.Baumann & Dafni) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase

≡ Orchis israelitica H.Baumann & Dafni

This remarkable species was only recently described from northern Israel/Palestine (Baumann and Dafni 1979) then discovered in southern Lebanon (Tohmé and Tohmé 2014). During our field work, we searched for it without success. It appears as an endemic taxon most likely threatened with extinction, and probably the rarest orchid of Lebanon and the Levant (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007).

Anacamptis cf. laxiflora auct., non (Lam.) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase

= Anacamptis laxiflora subsp. dinsmorei (Schltr.) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr. ?

≡ Orchis laxiflora var. dinsmorei Schltr.

– Orchis laxiflora subsp. dielsiana auct., non Soó

Marsh orchids are very rare plants today in the Levant and are probably on the edge of a path to extinction, although their taxonomy remains poorly known. Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich (2007) suggested that the only taxon in the Levant is A. l. subsp. dinsmorei, initially described from Israel/Palestine. Nevertheless, photographs taken in Lebanon by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) do not conform to those taken by Kreutz either in Israel/Palestine or in Turkey near the Hatay area (Kreutz 1998). The name dielsiana could be another candidate but is attached to a mostly continental taxon with a Mesopotamian distribution. Regardless of their accepted name, these taxa are very rare, threatened with extinction, most probably a Levantine endemic and in need of urgent action for protection.

Anacamptis morio subsp. syriaca (E.G.Camus) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr.

≡ Orchis morio subsp. syriaca E.G. Camus, Bergon & A. Camus

≡ Orchis syriaca Boiss. ex H.Baumann & Künkele

= Orchis picta subsp. libani Renz

≡ Orchis morio var. libani (Renz) Soó

= Orchis morio var. albiflora Boiss., non Tinant, nom. illeg.

– Orchis morio auct. liban., non L.

– Orchis picta auct. liban., non Loisel.

≡ Orchis morio subsp. picta (Loisel.) K.Richt.

– Anacamptis morio subsp. champagneuxii (Barnéoud) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr.

This taxon has been considered under various accepted names, but our field observations confirmed the position proposed by Kretzchmar et al. (2007) and was treated as a single species entity in Lebanon and in the whole Levant area. The floral variation concerns mainly coloration of labellum and sepals (white versus pink) but the central part of the labellum is always immaculate. The comparison with A. morio subsp. champagneuxii is tempting, but the taxon is an endemic from the most western areas of the Mediterranean (Kretzchmar et al. 2007) and the partial morphological convergences are not correlated with the biogeography, the ecology and the evolutionary history.

Anacamptis papilionacea subsp. palaestina (B.Baumann & R.Lorenz) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr.

– Orchis papilionacea var. rubra auct. liban., non (Jacq.) Brot.

– Orchis papilionacea var. brushniana auct., non Gruner

– Orchis caspia auct. israel., non Trautv.

– Anacamptis papilionacea subsp. schirwanica auct. liban., non (Woronow) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr.

≡ Orchis papilionacea subsp. schirwanica (Woronow) Soó

– Anacamptis papilionacea subsp. grandiflora auct. liban., non (Boiss.) Kreutz

– Anacamptis papilionacea subsp. messenica auct. liban., non (Renz) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr.

The infraspecific taxonomy of Anacamptis papilionacea is constituted by several vicariant geographical subspecies replacing each other (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). Considering that “schirwanica” (as “bruhnsiana”) is described as endemic from Caucasus, “messenica” from the Aegean and “grandiflora” from western Mediterranean, the sole adequate name for plants from Lebanon and Levant is subsp. palaestina, recently described from Israel/Palestine (Baumann and Lorenz 2005). Other names given to Lebanese plants are misuses for individual variations. In Lebanon, it seems to be limited to the southern part of the country, southwards from Beyrouth and surroundings (e.g. Mechref, Dmit, Barouk, Chhim, Tebnine, etc.) and to be an endemic shared with southwestern Syria and central northern Israel/Palestine.

At Barouk, it hybridizes with A. morio subsp. syriaca to give “Orchis × gennarii nothosubsp. baroukensis B. Baumann & H. Baumann”, named also Anacamptis × gennarii nothosubsp. choirokitiana (Kreutz & Scraton) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr., an anterior synonym described from Cyprus (Kreutz 2006; Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). We found it once southward from Saïda, on 21 February 2015. This phenomenon contributes to complicate the taxonomic identification of natural variations of parental species.

Anacamptis pyramidalis (L.) Rich. subsp. pyramidalis

In Lebanon we only saw the typical subspecies flowering in mid or late spring (April–May) whereas the early flowering subsp. urvilleana (Sommier & Caruana) Landwehr seems to be endemic from Malta and the summer flowering subsp. tanayensis (Chenevard) P. Quentin, is endemic to the Alps.

Anacamptis sancta (L.) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase

≡ Orchis sancta L.

This well-known species is abundant at low altitudes and presents no taxonomic difficulty.

In Lebanon it can hybridize with A. coriophora subsp. fragrans (cf. Haber and Semaan Haber 2009) producing Anacamptis × kallithea (E.Klein) H.Kretzschmar, Eccarius & H.Dietr., known also from Rhodos (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007).

Androrchis anatolica (Boiss.) D.Tyteca & E.Klein

≡ Orchis anatolica Boiss.

– Orchis quadripunctata auct. liban., non Cirillo ex Ten. ?

– Orchis troodii auct. liban., non (Renz) P.Delforge

In contrast to other countries such as Cyprus (cf. Androrchis troodi (Renz) D.Tyteca & E.Klein), southwest Turkey (cf. A. × sezikiana (B.Baumann & H.Baumann) W.Foelsche & Jakely), or Crete (cf. A. sitiaca (Renz) D.Tyteca & E.Klein), this abundant species shows no significant variation in Lebanon.

Two old mentions of “Orchis quadripunctata” were given in Post and Dinsmore (1932) for Lebanon and repeated by Thiébaut (1953). Curiously Mouterde (1966) did not cite it in his flora, without any explanation. As currently recognized, this species is considered limited to Adriatic and Aegean areas, ranging from central Italy to western Turkey (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007), and we prefer to treat it as a misidentification with the closest species, Androrchis anatolica.

Androrchis cf. mascula auct., non (L.)

=? Androrchis mascula subsp. longicalcarata (Akhalk., H.Baumann, R.Lorenz, Mosul. & Ruedi Peter) W.Foelsche & Jakely

=? Orchis mascula subsp. pinetorum (Boiss. & Kotschy) E.G.Camus

– Orchis mascula auct. liban., non (L.) L.

This name was used several times to indicate plants from Lebanon. As currently recognized, Androrchis mascula is absent in Lebanon and in the Levant (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). It was mentioned by Post (1896) at Bcharre but never since, and Mouterde (1966) considered it doubtful. Nevertheless Haber and Semaan Haber (2009: 123) illustrated a specimen not assimilable to Androrchis anatolica that could belong to the Androrchis mascula group. We consider that this matter needs further study.

Androrchis spitzelii subsp. latiflora (B.Baumann & H.Baumann) W.Foelsche & Jakely

≡ Orchis spitzelii subsp. latiflora B. Baumann & H. Baumann

= Orchis patens var. asiatica Renz, nom. nud.

– Orchis patens subsp. orientalis auct. liban., non (Rchb. f.) K. Richt.

– Orchis spitzelii subsp. cazorlensis auct. liban., non (Lacaita) D.Rivera & Lopez Vele

This is an interesting taxon, limited to Lebanon, southern Turkey (Mouterde 1966; Kreutz 1998 sub “Orchis spitzelii” pro parte), northwestern Iraq (Youssef et al. in press) and probably Iran (cf. Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). It has been formally described only recently (Baumann and Baumann 2005a). The differences with O. spitzelii are quite evident (sepals, spur, labellum), and the taxon was previously treated as a variety of O. patens Desf., a western Mediterranean endemic. Nevertheless, because it was poorly known, it was erroneously not retained in the monograph of Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich (2007). The superficial similarity with subsp. cazorlensis, an endemic from the Iberian peninsula (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007) has often been suggested, but the slight morphological divergences on labellum and ovaries (Baumann, Kunkele, and Lorenz 2006) correlated with such a high geographical hiatus should be interpreted as resulting from distinct evolutionary events, and therefore justify its consideration as a distinct subspecies.

Nevertheless, it hybridizes locally at Ehden (cf. Mouterde 1996; Kreutz 2006) with Androrchis anatolica to give Androrchis × ehdenica (Kreutz) comb. nov. [≡ bas.: Orchis × ehdenica Kreutz, J. Eur. Orch. 38: 143 (2006)]. It is the only known case of hybridization between Androrchis anatolica sensu lato and Androrchis spitzelii sensu lato.

Cephalanthera damasonium (Mill.) Druce

= Cephalanthera pallens Rich.

Previously only known in Turkish Hatay (Amanus) this rare species has been recently discovered in Lebanon and illustrated by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009).

Cephalanthera longifolia subsp. conferta B.Baumann & H.Baumann

≡ Cephalanthera conferta (B. Baumann & H. Baumann) Kreutz

– Cephalanthera longifolia auct. liban., non (L.) Fritsch

– Cephalanthera ensifolia auct. liban., non Rich.

Kreutz (2006) justifies his new combination because C. conferta and the typical C. longifolia occur sympatrically. He also explained that the variation range of C. conferta is not as presented by Baumann and Baumann (2005a) and overlaps partially with individuals of C. longifolia. Based on the plants observed in the field (Dheir el Qamar, Maassar El Chouf, Qartaba, Fnaidek) and photographs from bibliography, we tend to consider that there is only one subspecies throughout Lebanon and the Levant area (the limit and transition with typical subspecies is excepted in northern Syria or Turkish Hatay). Until proved otherwise, we prefer to consider subsp. longifolia as absent from Lebanon and replaced here by subsp. conferta.

Cephalanthera rubra (L.) Rich.

A very rare species in Lebanon discovered in the country by Mouterde (1966) and recently found and illustrated by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009). Not seen by Kreutz (2006) or by us.

Dactylorhiza iberica (M.Bieb. ex Willd.) Soó

≡ Orchis iberica M.Bieb. ex Willd.

This species has been known in Lebanon for a long time (see Post and Dinsmore 1932; Mouterde 1966) but was not seen by Kreutz (2006). It is still present today in Lebanese mountains as illustrated by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) and it is quite frequent above 1000 m altitude (mainly on the western slope of Mount Lebanon).

Dactylorhiza romana subsp. libanotica (Mouterde) Kreutz

≡ Orchis romana subsp. libanotica Mouterde

– Orchis sulphurea auct. liban., non Link

Mouterde (1966) treated this taxon at the subspecific rank, a position that has been recently argued and re-established by Kreutz (2007b) making this taxon an endemic from Levant. The claimed differences seem to us weak and that status would benefit from further discussion.

Dactylorhiza urvilleana subsp. phoenissa B. Baumann & H. Baumann

= Orchis incarnata var. longicalcarata J.Thiébaut, nom. nud. ?

– Orchis olocheilos auct. liban., non (Boiss.) Soó

≡ Orchis incarnata var. olocheilos Boiss.

– Orchis maculata subsp. macrostachys auct. liban., non (Tineo) Soó.

– Dactylorhiza maculata auct. liban., non (L.) Soó

– Dactylorhiza caramulensis auct. liban., non (Verm.) D.Tyteca

– Dactylorhiza fuchsii auct. liban., non (Druce) Soó

– Dactylorhiza fuchsii subsp. psychrophila auct. liban., non (Schltr.) Holub

– Dactylorhiza saccifera auct. liban., non (Brongn.) Soó

≡ Orchis maculata var. saccifera (Brongn.) Parl.

≡ Orchis maculata subsp. saccifera (Brongn.) K.Richt.

– Dactylorhiza traunsteineri auct. liban., non (Saut.) Soó

– Dactylorhiza elata auct. liban., non (Poir.) Soó

– Dactylorhiza urvilleana auct. liban., non (Steud.) H. Baumann & Künkele

– Dactylorhiza pindica auct. liban., non B.Willing & E.Willing

– Dactylorhiza majalis auct. liban., non (Rchb.) P.F.Hunt & Summerh.

This taxon was for a long time confused because classical floras tried to distinguish two distinct taxa, none of them being typical. Baumann and Baumann (2005a) recently suggested that all Lebanese individuals of Dactylorhiza maculata aggregate are not assimilable with D. maculata sensu stricto or D. saccifera but rather to another taxon, more closely related to D. urvilleana. Recently Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) reinstated this taxonomical confusion by adding many misused names. As far as we understand, considering the natural variability of the plants observed in the field, we prefer to follow Baumann and Baumann’s proposal. This treatment makes the taxon an endemic from Levant while the typical subspecies is a vicariant from the Pontic area.

The delimitation of this species is further complicated by the presence of occasional hybrids reported by Baumann and Baumann (2005a) at Bcharre between D. iberica and D. urvilleana subsp. phoenissa described under the name Dactylorhiza × balabaniana nsubsp. mizabensis B. Baumann and H.Baumann. We have seen such a hybrid once, on 15 June 2012.

Epipactis condensata Boiss. ex D.P.Young

– Epipactis cf. atrorubens Hoffm. ex Besser, sensu Kreutz 2006 ?

The presence of the taxon was suggested by Kreutz (2006) at Ehden under the provisional name “cf. atrorubens” but not illustrated. The Lebanese plants have been illustrated under this name by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009). So far, we have not observed such plants in Lebanon.

Epipactis helleborine subsp. levantina Kreutz, Óvári & A.Shifman

– Epipactis helleborine auct. liban. pro parte, non (L.) Crantz

– Epipactis latifolia auct. liban. pro max. parte, non (L.) All.

After having been seen in the field by Kreutz (2006) at Qbaiyat in northern Lebanon and by Durbin (2010) at Rayfoun in central-western Lebanon, this taxon was described from southern Turkey as a new subspecies widespread from Israel/Palestine to Greece and Azerbaijan. As other taxa in Epipactis sect. Epipactis (e.g. excluding E. veratrifolia Boiss. & Hohen.) this taxon needs further study to identify additional diagnostic characters.

Epipactis helleborine “subsp. praecox” nom. provis.

As far as we know, a population of Epipactis helleborine complex has never been claimed to be flowering in February. However, this is what we saw at Nahr El Kelb on 23 February 2015. The intrinsic variability of this population and its links with the neighbouring populations of the E. helleborine complex needs to be studied in order to better understand the identity of these plants (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Epipactis helleborine “subsp. praecox” nom. provis. (Nahr el-Kelb, 23 February 2015, J. Viglione).

Epipactis helleborine subsp. turcica (Kreutz) comb. nov.

≡ bas.: Epipactis turcica Kreutz, Eurorchis 9: 61 (1997).

≡ Epipactis tremolsii subsp. turcica (Kreutz) Kreutz

– Epipactis latifolia auct. liban. pro parte, non (L.) All.

– Epipactis tremolsii auct. liban., non Pau

– Epipactis tremolsii subsp. lusitanica auct. liban., non (D.Tyteca) Kreutz

This taxon was seen by Kreutz (2006) in several localities (Maassar el Chouf, Ehden, Tourza, Qnat), illustrated by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) and encountered by us in two localities (Maassar el Chouf, Bentael). This subspecies is sometimes considered as the oriental vicariant of the occidental subspecies lusitanica and tremolsii, or by other authors as a subspecies of E. helleborine (Tison et al. 2010). The necessary new combination is provided here.

Epipactis veratrifolia Boiss. & Hohen. subsp. veratrifolia

= Epipactis consimilis Wall. ex Hook.f.

In Lebanon the local form belongs to the typical summer flowering subspecies, recently distinguished from the southern and early flowering subsp. oaseana Shifman, described from Israel/Palestine and widespread throughout the Arabian peninsula (Shifman 2014). We have seen it once in the Nahr Ibrahim upper valley and it is becoming increasingly rare due to the destruction of its natural habitat (seepages).

Himantoglossum caprinum subsp. levantinum B. Baumann & H. Baumann

≡ Himantoglossum affine subsp. levantinum (B. Baumann & H. Baumann) Kreutz

=? Himantoglossum galilaeum Shifman

– Himantoglossum affine auct. liban., non (Boiss.) Schlecht.

As recently shown (Sramkó et al. 2012), the plants that were for a long time called H. affine belong to the typical form of H. caprinum (M.Bieb.) Spreng. subsp. caprinum from the Crimean peninsula. Following the same logic, the southern vicariant subsp. levantinum described from Maassar el Chouf should be treated as a subspecies of H. caprinum because this name has priority at species level. It is a very rarely observed taxon that we encountered in the type locality. The posterior description of H. galilaeum in the Galilea hills and the Golan plateau (Shifman 2008) contradicts the analysis of Baumann and Baumann (2005a). In spite of morphometric measures of the labellum lobes, the spur of H. caprisnum subsp. levantinum and H. galileum are identical and clearly distinct from H. affine s.s. = H. caprinum s.s., justifying to be treated as a separate taxon from the Anatolian-Pontic one. Nevertheless, in order to distinguish one taxon from South Lebanon, and the other from North Israel/Palestine, a comparative study based on abundant fresh material would be required.

Himantoglossum cf. caprinum auct., non (M.Bieb.) Spreng.

≡ Loroglossum hircinum var. caprinum (M.Bieb) Gallé

≡ Loroglossum hircinum subsp. caprinum (M.Bieb) K.Richt.

The recognition of a second taxon within Himantoglossum subgen. Himantoglossum (i.e. excluding subgenus Comperia) in Lebanon is still controversial. Classical floras named H. caprinum (in a classical, but erroneous sense) another plant growing on the eastern slope of northern Mount Lebanon. This plant was illustrated only by Tohmé and Tohmé (2007: 426, 2014: 426). Despite the opinion of Baumann and Baumann (2005a) we consider it difficult (if not impossible) to include this plant within the same taxon as those from southern Lebanon. As the classical H. caprinum auct., recently described as H. jankae Somlyay, Kreutz & Óvári (Molnar et al. 2012), is endemic from the Balkan peninsula and northwestern Turkey and morphologically very different, the plant illustrated by Tohmé and Tohmé (2007: 426, 2014: 426) still remains unresolved.

Himantoglossum comperianum (Steven) P.Delforge

≡ Comperia comperiana (Steven) Asch. & Graebn

≡ Orchis comperiana Steven

This species is easily delimited. The positioning within the genus Himantoglossum as suggested by Delforge (1999) is strongly supported by the complete and multigene phylogeny of the genus (Sramkó et al. 2014). We found it only on the western slope of Mount Lebanon (Fnaideq, Ehden, Faraya).

Limodorum abortivum (L.) Sw.

In Lebanon, we have only seen the typical form (f. abortivum). To our knowledge, no abnormality has been observed in the country, neither the hyperchromatic “var. rubrum Sund. ex Kreutz”, nor the variety lacking the spur, “var. trabutianum (Batt.) Schltr.” nor any other floral atrophy.

Neotinea maculata (Desf.) Stearn

= Orchis intacta Link

≡ Neotinea intacta (Link) Rchb.f.,

≡ Tinea intacta (Link) Boiss.,

This well-known species is sparse, but widespread through Lebanon from north (e.g. Tripoli) to south (e.g. Chhim). Because of autogamy, chromatic variations of flowers (f. alba Maire & Weiller ex F.M.Vázquez; f. luteola (Renz) F.M.Vázquez) and/or chlorophyllous organs (leaves, stems, bracts, ovaries) are sometimes fixed within populations and have justified infraspecific taxonomy. Furthermore, in some Lebanese populations the flowers have a longer labellum especially divided into four distinct lobes, as the central one is divided into two lobes as long as half of the lateral ones (as for Orchis anthropophora L.!). However, this variation is not constant (see Tohmé and Tohmé 2014) and does not carry any taxonomic significance.

Neotinea tridentata (Scop.) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase subsp. tridentata

≡ Orchis tridentata Scop.

=? Orchis commutata Tod.

≡ Orchis tridentata var. commutata (Tod.) Rchb.f.

≡ Neotinea tridentata var. commutata (Tod.) Kreutz

= Orchis tridentata var. albiflora Post

– Orchis lactea auct. liban., non Poir.

– Neotinea tridentata subsp. conica auct. liban., non (Willd.) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase

This taxon shows a high variability in labellum shape and coloration, which caused it to be often confused with other more or less distinct taxa. All populations we have seen in the field belong to the same biological entity in Lebanon. The presence in Lebanon of the Ibero-Maghrebian subsp. conica is irrelevant as the two subspecies are geographically vicariant and replace each other (Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). The presence of N. lactea (Poir.) R.M.Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W.Chase is unlikely, and until proven otherwise we prefer to consider it absent from Lebanon and the whole Levant. The distinction of subsp. or var. commutata is still controversial, but this taxon is typified from Sicily with large flowers never found in Lebanon.

Ophrys alasiatica Kreutz

This poorly known species was considered endemic to Cyprus since its description (Kreutz, Segers, and Walraven 2002, Kreutz 2004). It is clearly distinct from Ophrys mammosa complex, except for some superficial similarities with the Pontic Ophrys caucasica Woronow or the Peloponnesian Ophrys aesculapii Renz. One of us (J.V.) has found it in the agricultural plain of Chekka (near El Heri) in a highly threatened environment. It flowers very early, in February (Figure 2). It was found as a single individual, possibly only as a casual.

Figure 2. Ophrys alasiatica (Chekka, 19 February 2011, J. Viglione).

Ophrys apifera Huds.

In Lebanon, we have mainly seen the typical form (f. apifera) of this autogamous species, the only one in the genus. We encountered only once (at Bentael) a morphogenetic lusus on the labellum named f. trollii (Hegetschw.) P.D.Sell. To our knowledge no other variation concerning labellum coloration as in f. bicolor (E.Nelson) P.D.Sell and f. flavescens (Rosbach) P.D.Sell or petal morphology has been reported for the country.

Ophrys bornmuelleri M.Schulze “sensu lato”

= Ophrys bornmuelleri subsp. ziyaretiana (Kreutz & Ruedi Peter) Kreutz

≡ Ophrys bornmuelleri var. ziyaretiana (Kreutz & Ruedi Peter) P.Delforge

= Ophrys levantina subsp. grandiflora (H.Fleischm. & Soó) Kreutz

≡ Ophrys bornmuelleri f. grandiflora H.Fleischm. & Soó

= Ophrys aphroditae Devillers & Devillers-Tersch.

– Ophrys rosea auct. liban., non (Desf.) Dufour

– Ophrys tenthredinifera auct. liban., non Willd.

– Ophrys carduchorum auct. liban., non (Renz & Taubenheim) P.Delforge

Much as it is easy to define the O. bornmuelleri species (extremely short and triangular petals, the bump of the lip forming a false appendix), it has not been possible for us to distinguish one or several subspecies associated with any ecotype within the naturally high variability of the population observed in situ through Mediterranean Lebanon (sepal colours, labellum shape, size of flowers). The argument given by Kreutz (2006) and his photographs did not help us in recognizing subspecific taxa. At this point, we prefer to consider the Lebanese populations as a single taxon, widespread from north (Donnieh) to the southern border (Rmaich). Regarding the newly described O. aphroditae from Cyprus (Devillers and Devillers-Terschuren 2012), we consider that the distinction of an insular species from the continental typical O. bornmuelleri is based on inconsistent morphological criteria and mainly an a priori concept of a geographical isolation. None of the given criteria is sufficient to recognize any distinction based on a detailed examination of the natural variability of continental populations, suggesting that the insular taxon is better treated as a synonym.

Ophrys cf. cinereophila Paulus & Gack ?

– Ophrys persephonae auct. liban., non Paulus

This taxon has been recently distinguished from the Ophrys fusca aggregate (Paulus 1998). Its presence or the presence of a closely related taxon in Lebanon is suggested by photographs of Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) under the names O. cinereophila and O. persephonae. We have not seen such plants in Lebanon and their scientific identity requires further study.

Ophrys episcopalis subsp. libanotica (B.Baumann & H.Baumann) comb. nov.

≡ bas. : Ophrys holoserica subsp. libanotica B.Baumann & H.Baumann, J. Eur. Orch. 37: 724 (2005).

– Ophrys arachnites auct. liban., non Lam., nom. illeg.

– Ophrys fuciflora auct. liban., non (Crantz) Rchb.f., nom. illeg.

– Ophrys episcopalis auct. liban., non Poir.

≡ Ophrys holoserica subsp. episcopalis (Poir.) Kreutz

– Ophrys holoserica subsp. helios auct. liban., non (Kreutz) Kreutz

– Ophrys holoserica subsp. arameorum auct. liban., non (P.Delforge) Kreutz

– Ophrys holoserica subsp. gresivaudanica auct. liban., non (O.Gerbaud) Kreutz

– Ophrys fuciflora auct. liban., non (F.W.Schmidt) Moench

– Ophrys holoserica auct. israel., non (Burm.f.) Greuter

The taxonomic identity of the Lebanese “fucifloroid” plants remained controversial for a long time. As the typical Ophrys fuciflora (syn. O. holosericea) is a western and central middle-European species, the oldest name available for eastern Mediterranean plants is Ophrys episcopalis, initially described from Crete in 1816. Baumann and Baumann (2005a) were the first to formally describe the Lebanese taxon at subspecies rank based on plants collected near Jbeil. Since we consider its biological affinity as more similar to O. episcopalis than to O. fuciflora, it is necessary to make a new combination, which is here proposed. We found it in numerous localities from Jbeil until the southern border (Hanine), and from sea level (Nahr Ibrahim) to at least 1000 m elevation (e.g. Niha).

Ophrys galilaea H.Fleischm. & Bornm.

≡ Ophrys lutea subsp. galilaea (H.Fleischm. & Bornm.) Soó

≡ Ophrys lutea var. galilaea (H.Fleischm. & Bornm.) Soó, comb. inval. ?

– Ophrys lutea auct., non Cav.

– Ophrys lutea subsp. minor auct., non (Tod.) O. & E Danesch

– Ophrys lutea subsp. archimedea auct. liban., non (P.Delforge & M.Walravens) Kreutz

– Ophrys lutea subsp. numida auct. liban., non (Devillers-Tersch. & Devillers) Kreutz

– Ophrys lutea subsp. melena auct. liban., non Renz

– Ophrys sicula auct. liban., non Tineo

Since Ophrys lutea sensu stricto was restricted to the central-western Mediterranean, the most oriental taxon of the aggregate was first described from Israel/Palestine near the Lebanese border. It was successfully identified by Mouterde (1966) as the only taxon in the Levant region. It is widespread through Lebanon, flowering from February to May, according to the altitude, ranging from sea level to 1600 m in djebel Qammouaa. All the populations that we examined do not present any variation outside the normal spectrum of the species (mainly distinguished from other taxon of O. lutea aggregate by its relatively long petals). Other names proposed for Lebanese plants are misapplied for individual non-significant variability.

Ophrys cf. heterochila auct., non (Renz & Taubenheim) P.Delforge

≡ Ophrys holoserica subsp. heterochila Renz & Taubenheim, Orchidee (Hamburg) 31: 237 (1980).

=? Ophrys holosericea subsp. mesopotamica Kreutz & H.Baumgartner

– Ophrys scolopax auct. liban. pro parte, non Cav.

Curious plants photographed by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009: 182) under the name O. holoserica subsp. heterochila and by Tohmé and Tohmé (2007, 2014) under the name O. scolopax seem to illustrate a distinct taxon, the identity of which remains unclear or is misunderstood. We have not yet found such plants in the field.

Kreutz (2014), after describing a new subspecies from southeastern Turkey (O. holoserica subsp. mesopotamica) with smaller flowers than subsp. libanotica claimed that he saw both plants in Lebanon, but only subsp. libanotica was illustrated from Lebanon, whereas subsp. mesopotamica was illustrated only from Turkey. Further analysis of additional material is required to uncover the identity of these taxa.

Ophrys iricolor Desf. subsp. iricolor

– Ophrys fusca auct. liban., non (Viv.) Barla

This species, cited by Post and Dinsmore (1932) in Israel/Palestine, was effectively distinguished in Lebanon from the related O. omegaifera Desf. (sub “O. fusca”) by Mouterde (1966). We have seen it in three localities from central north (Amioun, Bentael) to central south Lebanon (Chhim).

Ophrys cf. oestrifera auct., non M.Bieb.

=? Ophrys oestrifera subsp. latakiana (M. & H. Schönfelder) Kreutz

– Ophrys cornuta auct. liban., non Steven

– Ophrys scolopax auct. liban. pro parte, non Cav.

Much confusion is related to the nomenclature, the possible presence and the name of the “scolopaxoid” plants in Lebanon. In addition, herbarium specimens are of little help in clarifying the identity of this taxon and the only material illustrating such a plant is the photograph of Haber and Semaan Haber (2009: 148) under the name “Ophrys scolopax Cav.”. More information and field studies are necessary in order to understand the taxonomic identity of these plants.

Ophrys omegaifera subsp. israelitica (H. Baumann & Künkele) G. & K. Morschek

≡ Ophrys israelitica H.Baumann & Künkele

– Ophrys fusca auct. liban., non Link

– Ophrys mirabilis auct. liban., non Geniez & Melki

– Ophrys sitiaca auct. liban., non Paulus, C.Alibertis & A.Alibertis

– Ophrys omegaifera auct. liban., non H.Fleischm.

– Ophrys omegaifera subsp. dyris auct. liban., non (Maire) Del Prete

Long confused with O. fusca, the O. omegaifera group was described and circumscribed only during the twentieth century. Differing from the typical Aegean O. omegaifera, the oriental taxon is pollinated by Andrena and not Anthophora (both Apoidea insects) a fact that led some authors to consider it as a distinct species under the name O. israelitica. Nevertheless, they are geographical vicariants, occurring westwards and eastwards to Antalya in southern Turkey respectively (Kreutz 1998) and have been well morphologically and ecologically circumscribed by Mouterde (1966) although under the erroneous name “O. fusca”. This species is widely distributed from central-north (Chekka, between Tourza and Amioun, Baabda, Rass el Metn, Baskinta) through the southern border (wadi ed Debb). It flowers from winter at low altitudes to April at high altitudes. As suggested by Kreutz (2006), we believe that this taxon is the only representative of the O. omegaifera aggregate in the Levant area.

Ophrys schulzei Bornm. & Fleischm.

– Ophrys cilicica auct. liban., non Schltr.

– Ophrys scolopax auct. liban., non Cav.

This mountain species was described from Zagros in northern Iraq and was first suggested to occur in Lebanon by Thiébaut (1953) and then by Mouterde (1966), under a confused synonymy with O. cilicica and/or O. scolopax. Baumann and Baumann (2002) were the first to confirm the presence of this species and since then, many colour photographs have proven its presence (e.g. Haber and Semann Haber 2009) mainly on the western slope of Mount Lebanon. We have seen it twice in the field, at Ehden and between Faitroun and Faraya, flowering from mid-May to mid-June.

Ophrys speculum subsp. orientalis (Paulus) Paulus & Salk.

= Ophrys eos Devillers & Devillers-Tersch.

– Ophrys speculum auct. liban., non Link

This is a well-known circum-Mediterranean species, which in its oriental range presents a colour pattern associated with a geographical vicariance of its pollinator, providing support for Paulus (2001) to describe a new subspecies. This oriental vicariant has been also described at the specific rank (Devillers and Devillers-Terschuren 2009), according to a narrower species concept that is not followed here. We found it only in one locality between Chekka and Amioun (near Kfar Hazir).

Ophrys transhyrcana subsp. mouterdeana (B. Baumann & H. Baumann) Kreutz

= Ophrys spruneri var. orientalis Schlechter, nom. nud. ?

– Ophrys mammosa auct. liban., non Desf.

– Ophrys sintenesii auct. liban., non Desf.

– Ophrys spruneri auct. liban., non Nym.

≡ Ophrys hiulca Spruner ex Rchb.F., non Sebast. & Mauri, nom illeg.

– Ophrys transhyrcana auct. liban., non Czerniak.

– Ophrys sphegodes auct. israel., non Mill.

Following a complex nomenclatural history with several names involved, the current consensus consists in considering that the only taxon of the Ophrys mammosa aggregate in the Levant area is the recently described subsp. mouterdeana (Baumann and Baumann 2005a). The typical O. mammosa and O. spruneri are mainly Aegean / Graecian species (Kreutz 1998; Antonopoulos 2009) and the typical O. transhyrcana and O. sintenesii are synonymous for the same central Asian species (Baumann and Baumann 2005a). This taxon is widespread throughout Mediterranean Lebanon, and we encountered it in the south (Kfar Sir, Barouk) and in the north (near Chekka) of Lebanon.

Ophrys umbilicata subsp. flavomarginata (Renz) Faurh.

≡ Ophrys flavomarginata (Renz) H.Baumann & Künkele

= Ophrys umbilicata subsp. latilabris B. Baumann & H. Baumann

≡ Ophrys latilabris (B. Baumann & H. Baumann) Shifman

– Ophrys attica auct. liban. pro parte, non (Boiss. & Orph.) Soó

– Ophrys bombyliflora auct. liban., non Link

Initially known only from Cyprus (cf. Kreutz 2004), then on the Israel coastline (cf. Shifman 2004, 2011; Baumann and Baumann 2005b) under the name “O. umbilicata subsp. latilabris”, it was discovered and illustrated in Lebanon by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009). We have found it in several locations eastwards and northwards from Beirut up to a 1100 m elevation (Monteverde, Bolonia, Nahr el Kelb, Bentael, Rass Chekka, Amioun). Nevertheless, the natural variability of populations is not well circumscribed and taxonomic delimitation with other subspecies is not always easy.

Mouterde (1966) asserted that the historical mentions of O. bombyliflora at Beirut are erroneous and concern “Ophrys attica” sensu lato. As it was the only mention of the species in Lebanon and in the Levant area (Post and Dinsmore 1932), until proven otherwise, we suggest that the species is absent from the country.

Ophrys umbilicata subsp. rhodia H.Baumann & Künkele

= Ophrys rhodia (H.Baumann & Künkele) P.Delforge

= Ophrys astarte Devillers & Devillers-Tersch.

– Ophrys attica auct. liban. pro parte, non (Boiss. & Orph.) Soó

– Ophrys attica subsp. carmeli auct. isr., non H.Fleischm. & Bornm.

The affinities of this taxon are controversial. Although some authors consider it as closely related to O. umbilicata, because the dorsal sepal is sometimes folded downwards onto the gynostema, others consider it as more similar to O. scolopax, precisely because the sepal is often not folded downwards. The species was correctly illustrated and named by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009). We observed it in a few localities in southern Lebanon (between Yaroun and Bent Jbeil, Srobbine, Kfar-Sir southwards from Nahr Litani, etc.).

Ophrys umbilicata Desf. subsp. umbilicata

= Ophrys carmeli H.Fleischm. & Bornm.

= Ophrys dinsmorei Schltr.

= Ophrys cornuta subsp. orientalis Renz

≡ Ophrys attica var. orientalis (Renz) Mouterde

= Ophrys umbilicata subsp. beerii Shifman

– Ophrys cornuta auct. liban., non Steven

Since O. attica (Boiss. & Orph.) Soó is currently considered as the Graecian continental vicariant with green perianth of the Aegean pink/white perianth O. umbilicata (Antonopoulos 2009), describing an oriental vicariant of O. attica with pink or white sepals is a nonsense. Following Mouterde (1966) and as defined in previous descriptions (cf. Post and Dinsmore 1932), O. carmeli and O. dinsmorei were described from the same locality and seem to be concurrent synonyms, both synonymous with O. umbilicata. We found this subspecies in several localities southwards from Beirut (between Mechref and Dmit, Chhim, etc.).

In summary, as Shifman (2011) and Devillers and Devillers-Terschuren (2012) for Israel/Palestine and/or for Cyprus, we can recognize three taxa for Lebanon, and we consider that they are identical to the ones in Israel/Palestine and Cyprus.

Orchis galilaea (Bornm. & M. Schulze) Schltr.

≡ Orchis punctulata subsp. galilaea (Bornm. & M.Schulze) Soó

– Aceras anthropophorum auct. liban., non (L.) R.Br.

This wonderful species presents a continuous colour variation without any infraspecific taxonomic significance. Its sympatric distribution with O. punctulata Steven ex Lindl., without any massive hybridization and/or intermediate specimens, advocates their specific status. Whereas historical records from northwestern Syria and nothwestern Jordan are nowadays considered extinct if not doubtful (Schönfelder and Schönfelder 2002; Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich. 2007), it is currently treated as endemic to the region ranging from central Israel/Palestine (Shifman 2004) to central Lebanon (Mouterde 1966). One of us (J.V.) found it in a northern locality at Rass Chekka in February 2015 (we observed it also at Broumana, Haut Metn and Chhim). It is found from sea level to 1000 m altitude, and Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich (2007) suggested that it is threatened with extinction; nevertheless its populations from Haut Metn are today still abundant.

Following Mouterde (1966), the only historical and erroneous mention of Aceras (Orchis) anthropophora has to be reported to this taxon.

Orchis italica Poir.

= Orchis longicruris Link

This well-known species is infrequent, although widespread throughout Lebanon, from central north (e.g. Chekka, Bentael, djebel Moussa) to central south (e.g. Chhim).

Orchis punctulata Steven ex Lindl.

= Orchis punctulata subsp. sepulchralis (Rchb.f.) Soó,

This beautiful species seems to be rare in Lebanon, located in two historical areas around Qammouaa in Aakkar (where we have seen it) and near Saïda at Majdelyoun (where we have not looked for it) but Tohmé and Tohmé (2014) found it near Tyr at Qlaileh.

Orchis simia Lam.

This well-known and widespread species is rare in Lebanon and reaches the southern limit of its range near Jounieh in central Lebanon (cf. Mouterde 1966, Kretzschmar, Eccarius, and Dietrich 2007). We have seen it only in the Aakkar region (at Fnaideq and Qammouaa forest).

Serapias orientalis subsp. dafnii (B. Baumann & H. Baumann) Kreutz

≡ Serapias levantina subsp. dafnii B.Baumann & H.Baumann

– Serapias vomeracea auct. liban. pro min. parte, non (Burm.f.) Briq.

– Serapias orientalis auct. liban., non (Greuter) H.Baumann & Künkele

– Serapias neglecta auct. liban., non De Not.

As explained by Baumann and Baumann (2005a) in Lebanon at least two distinct taxa of Serapias, historically confused under the name “Serapias vomeracea”, can be easily found. This one grows on sandy wet soils on the Chouf Mountains (Barouk, Maassar el Chouf, etc.) and Mount Lebanon central and northern areas (Metn, Baskinta, Nahr Ibrahim, Bcharre). It clearly belongs to the S. orientalis morphospecies and represents its vicariant endemic from Levant. The mention of S. neglecta in Lebanon (Haber and Semaan Haber 2009), an endemic subspecies from the Tyrrhenian area, is based on illustrations showing a pale coloured variation of S. orientalis subsp. dafnii.

Serapias vomeracea subsp. levantina (H. Baumann & Künkele) comb. nov.

≡ bas. : Serapias levantina H.Baumann & Künkele, Mitt. Arbeitskreis Heimische Orchid. Baden-Württemberg 21: 766 (1989).

≡ Serapias orientalis subsp. levantina (H. Baumann & Künkele) Kreutz

– Serapias vomeracea auct. liban. pro max. parte, non (Burm.f.) Briq.,

This taxon, first described in Israel/Palestine by Baumann and Künkele (1989) shows some typical forms more similar to the western Mediterranean S. vomeracea than to the S. orientalis aggregate. We, therefore consider it as an oriental vicariant, and the necessary new combination is here proposed. It grows in central Lebanon at low or medium altitudes up to 1100 m elevation (Chekka, Yahchouch, Harissa, Broumana, Monteverde, Bolonia, etc.).

Spiranthes spiralis (L.) Chevall.

= Spiranthes autumnalis (Balb.) Rich.

This is a well-delimited, common species (Chekka, Bentael, Ras el Metn, Monteverde, etc.) easily recognized during spring by its leaves in basal rosettes.

Discussion

Taxonomic diversity

The present compilation accounted for 46 taxa at species only level and 51 elementary taxonomic units at specific and/or infraspecific level for the orchid flora in Lebanon; this a slightly higher number than that reported in the classical inventories, which generally ranges from 38 to 43 species or 42 to 47 elementary taxa (see Table 1).

Baumann and Baumann (2005a) described six specific or subspecific taxa (plus two hybrids), all new to science. None of them is a new chorological record, although all of them are taxonomic rearrangements, resulting from the separation of one taxon and five new combinations:

•

Serapias orientalis subsp. dafnii follows from the splitting of Serapias vomeracea (subsp. levantina).

•

Cephalanthera longifolia subsp. conferta, Dactylorhiza urvilleana subsp. phoenissa, Himantoglossum caprinum subsp. levantinum, Ophrys mammosa subsp. mouterdeana and Orchis spitzelii subsp. latiflora (here Androrchis spitzelii subsp. latiflora) respectively follow from a taxonomic renaming of the local “C. longifolia”, both “Orchis holocheilos” and “O. maculata subsp. macrostachys” and later “D. saccifera” (taxonomic lumping!), “H. affine”, “O. sintenesii” (or later “O. transhyrcana”), and “O. patens” (or later “O. spitzelii”).

Kreutz (2006) cited two taxa, which are here considered as new records for Lebanon: Epipactis “cf. atrorubens” (considered here as E. condensata) and E. helleborine subsp. turcica; both probably follow from the taxonomic splitting of E. helleborine s.l. (here subsp levantina). Another taxon (Cephalanthera longifolia s.s.) is here considered as doubtful because C. longifolia subsp. conferta is more probably a taxonomic renaming of C. longifolia auct., but not a taxonomic splitting at regional level. The last ones are “Ophrys bornmuelleri subsp. ziyaretiana” and “O. levantina subsp. grandiflora”, two taxonomic separations from O. bornmuelleri s.s., which we have not recognized because we were unable to distinguish them from the global population variability.

Haber and Semaan Haber (2009) illustrated seven probably new records, which are here considered:

•	Cephalanthera damasonium (new chorological record);
•	Ophrys cf. cinereophila, O. cf. heterochila, O. cf. oestrifera, O. umbilicata subsp. flavomarginata, O. umbilicata subsp. rhodia (taxonomic splittings);
•	Androrchis cf. mascula (rehabilitation of an old record previously considered erroneous?).

Versus the taxa recorded by Mouterde (1966), Tohmé and Tohmé (2014) follow the same nomenclature, but add nevertheless two taxa presented as new for Lebanon: one is a new chorological record (Anacamptis israelitica), the other appears as a taxonomic splitting from Ophrys israelitica distinguished from O. fusca. Nevertheless, the true O. fusca does not occur in Lebanon and then the presence of O. israelitica has to be considered as a taxonomic renaming from “O. fusca” auct. liban.

Finally, two new taxa are recorded by us in the present work: E. helleborine “subsp. praecox” and O. alasiatica, both most probably to be considered as taxonomic splitting, respectively from E. helleborine s.l. and O. mammosa s.l.

Several infaspecific taxa are not treated here because they are considered as minor variations (mainly albinism phenomenon).

Hence, we can summarize the higher number of taxa as follow: two new chorological records (Haber and Semaan Haber 2009; Tohmé and Tohmé 2014) and 11 due to taxonomic separations (Baumann and Baumann 2005a; Kreutz 2006; Haber and Semaan Haber 2009; Tohmé and Tohmé 2014; the present work). In addition, 11 other taxa separated by Kreutz (2006) from Ophrys bornmuelleri sensu lato are not recognized here and require further study. On the other hand, the only synonymization that has reduced the number of taxa refers to the genus Dactylorhiza (Baumann and Baumann 2005a). Considering the extreme diversification suggested by Haber and Semaan Haber (2009), five taxonomic separations have been recognized here and all the others have been considered as misapplied names cited in the list of synonyms.

Biogeography and endemism

At least 14 taxa (28%) are endemics from the Levant area (including at most Hatay in southern Turkey, western Syria, Lebanon, northwestern Jordan, Israel/Palestine and Cyprus) and four of them (8%) are two bordering country endemics (Lebanon + Israel/Palestine or Lebanon + Syria). However, seven additional taxa remain poorly known and most of them would probably be added to the list of endemic taxa upon further examination (Table 2).

Table 2. Biogeographic characterization of Lebanese orchid taxonomic entities (species and/or infraspecific) following bibliography (see details within text).

Taxa considered here for Lebanon	Regional endemism (yes/no): Biogeography
01. Anacamptis collina	No: Medit.-Iran.
02. Anacamptis coriophora subsp. fragrans	No: Medit.
03. Anacamptis israelitica	Yes: S-Leb. + N-Isr./Pal.
04. Anacamptis cf. laxiflora auct.	?: possibly Levant?
05. Anacamptis morio subsp. syriaca	No: E-Medit.
06. Anacamptis papilionacea subsp. palaestina	Yes: Levant
07. Anacamptis pyramidalis subsp. pyramidalis	No: W-Palearctic
08. Anacamptis sancta	No: E-Medit.
09. Androrchis anatolica	No: E-Medit.-Zagros
10. Androrchis cf. mascula auct.	?
11. Androrchis spitzelii subsp. latiflora	No: Levant-Zagros
12. Cephalanthera damasonium	No: W-Palearctic
13. Cephalanthera longifolia subsp. conferta	Yes: Levant
14. Cephalanthera rubra	No: W-Palearctic
15. Dactylorhiza iberica	No: E-Medit.-Caucas.
16. Dactylorhiza romana subsp. libanotica	Yes: Levant
17. Dactylorhiza urvilleana subsp. phoenissa	Yes: Leb. + Syr.?
18. Epipactis condensata	No: E-Medit.-Caucas.
19. Epipactis helleborine subsp. levantina	No: E-Medit.-Caucas.
20. Epipactis helleborine “subsp. praecox”	?: possibly Lebanon?
21. Epipactis helleborine subsp. turcica	No: E-Medit.-Caucas.
22. Epipactis veratrifolia subsp. veratrifolia	No: E-Medit.-Iran.-Himal.
23. Himantoglossum caprinum subsp. levantinum	Yes: S-Leb. + N-Isr/Pal.
24. Himantoglossum cf. caprinum auct.	?
25. Himantoglossum comperianum	No: E-Medit.-Zagros
26. Limodorum abortivum	No: W-Palearctic
27. Neotinea maculata	No: Medit.
28. Neotinea tridentata	No: S-Europ.-Caucas.
29. Ophrys alasiatica	Yes: (Levant
30. Ophrys apifera	No: W-Palearctic
31. Ophrys bornmuelleri “sensu lato”	No: Levant-Zagros
32. Ophrys cf. cinereophila ?	?
33. Ophrys episcopalis subsp. libanotica	Yes: Levant
34. Ophrys cf. heterochila auct.	?
35. Ophrys iricolor subsp. iricolor	No: Medit.
36. Ophrys galilaea	Yes: Levant
37. Ophrys cf. oestrifera auct.	?
38. Ophrys omegaifera subsp. israelitica	Yes: Levant
39. Ophrys schulzei	No: Levant-Zagros
40. Ophrys speculum subsp. orientalis	No: E-Medit.
41. Ophrys transhyrcana subsp. mouterdeana	No: Levant-Zagros
42. Ophrys umbilicata subsp. flavomarginata	Yes: Levant
43. Ophrys umbilicata subsp. rhodia	No: E-Medit.
44. Ophrys umbilicata subsp. umbilicata	No: E-Medit.
45. Orchis galilaea	Yes: historically Levant, currently Leb. + Isr./Pal.
46. Orchis italica	No: Medit.
47. Orchis punctulata	No: E-Medit.-Caucas.
48. Orchis simia	No: W-Palearctic
49. Serapias orientalis subsp. dafnii	Yes: Levant
50. Serapias vomeracea subsp. levantina	Yes: Levant
51. Spiranthes spiralis	No: W-Palearctic

Endemism is considered for Lebanon and adjacent countries (Israel/Palestine, Syria) plus Cyprus and Amanus/Hatay in the geographical term “Levant”.

Abbreviations are Caucas.: Caucasian; Himal.: Himalayan; Iran.: Iranian; Isr/Pal.: Israel/Palestine; Leb.: Lebanon; Medit.: Mediterranean; Syr.: Syria.

Within the non-endemic taxa, 12 are Eastern Mediterranean with extension to the Zagros or Caucasus mountains, seven are widespread Palaearctic, five are strictly Eastern Mediterranean, four are circum-Mediterranean, one is Mediterraneo-Iranian and another one is South-European-Caucasian.

The absence of record of Platanthera sp. in Lebanon, especially of P. chlorantha subsp. holmboei (H.Lindb.) J.J.Wood, well known in Israel/Palestine near the Lebanese border (northern Galilea and Golan plateau, cf. Shifman 2008) and historically in northwestern Syria near the Lebanese border (Ain el Haramiyeh, cf. Mouterde, 1966) is intriguing. It is indeed surprising that we do not find in southern Lebanon and/or in the Aakkar area in northern Lebanon.

Conclusion

The next correlated objective to this work will be to include all recognized names in a database framework in order to build a taxonomic referential useful to botanists working on Lebanon. Of course, extending the same project to the whole vascular flora of Lebanon would be highly desirable.

Notes on contributors

Errol Vela is a lecturer at the University of Montpellier where he teaches environmental expertise and botany. He obtained his doctoral degree in 2002 on the plant biodiversity of the Mediterranean dry grasslands. He worked as an expert naturalist for 5 years in France and he continues environmental assessment internationally. In addition to various research projects on biogeography and phylogeography, he is interested in taxonomy and floristics in France, North Africa and Middle East. Contribution: initiated the scientific objective of the project, conceptualized the methodology, wrote the manuscript, co-worked on taxonomical aspects and contributed to the naturalistic exploration of the country.

Julien Viglione is the founder and general manager of the company Eco-Med (Ecology and Mediation LLC) which activity focuses on environmental assessment and ecological restoration in France and in the Mediterranean Region. He is also an expert naturalist specializing in various taxonomic groups of Mediterranean fauna and flora, especially reptiles and orchids. Contribution: initiated the naturalistic exploration of the country, inventoried the territory, co-worked on taxonomical aspects and participated in the scientific elaboration of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Field studies were possible with the courtesy of Dr Carla Khater, Rita El-Hajj Wasaya (CNRSL, Beirut) and Prof. Magda Bou Dagher-Kharrat (Univ. St-Joseph, Beirut). This work is an LIA O-LiFE contribution number SA 14-2015. The authors are grateful to Daniel Tyteca for his pertinent comments, Piero Delprete for his help in language corrections, and to the editorial board and an anonymous reviewer.