Crocus biflorus subsp. caelestis KERNDORFF & PASCHE 2006, subsp. nova
Creators: name: Kerndorff, H.
name: Pasche, E.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2006
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Liliopsida
Asparagales
Iridaceae
Crocus
Crocus biflorus
Crocus biflorus subsp. caelestis kerndorff &amp; pasche

description: Crocus biflorus subsp. caelestis KERNDORFF & PASCHE, subsp. nova   
H o l o t y p u s: Turkey,Phrygia, Uşak Province, surrounding areas of the city of Uşak, 1200- 1400 m, 13.3.2004, HKEP 0409 (LI).  
Subspecies punctato affinis, sed cum colore florum pallidiore, caelestis, sine segmentis peculiaris punctatis vel segmentis triis exterioris extus significante colorata, antherea sine lobis nigris, filamenta incolorata et folia plura.  
Corm globose, about 10-15 mm in diameter. Tunics more or less membranous, splitting longitudinally into stripes, with rings at base. Neck short, approximately 3-5 mm. Cataphylls 3, silvery-white, the outer ones drying very light brownish. Leaves shorter than flowers at anthesis, 3-7 but normally 4, green, 0.5-1 mm in diameter, glabrous, no ribs underneath. White stripe normally distinctly smaller than 1/3 of leaf diameter. Throat mostly white or light lemon-yellow to yellow, glabrous. Perianth tube greyish-blue. Outer segments between 19 and 29 mm but usually 23 mm long, between 6 and 12 mm mostly 7 mm wide. Inner segments between 18 and 27 mm but usually 23 mm long and between 5 and 13 mm frequently 7 mm wide. Inside all segments are pale sky-blue without markings, outside also pale sky-blue rarely with very diffuse markings or stripes. Prophyll absent. Bract and bracteole present, silvery-white, conspicuous. Filaments on average 3.7 mm long, colourless to light yellow, glabrous to scabrid at base; anthers on average 9.2 mm long, yellow, connective colourless. Pollen yellow. The styles are orange to red, divided into 3 branches which are not trumpet-shaped and only slightly fringed towards the apex; branches 3-7 mm but usually 5 mm long, glabrous to scabrid. The styles are mostly shorter to equal compared to the stamens. Capsule and seeds not seen. Chromosome number unknown.  
 C. biflorus subsp. caelestis clearly differs from other C. biflorus taxa of south-west Anatolia in colour and overall appearance. It is generally rather pale "heavenly blue" (= caelestis). In most specimens featherings and markings are very diffuse, poorly developed or missing at all. The sky-blue colouring of the segments is most intensive at the apex but decreasing rapidly into a whitish or light yellow colour (rarely deeper yellow) towards the centre of the flower, giving the plant a somewhat "out-washed" appearance. Although morphologically close to subspp. punctatus and pulchricolor (on the basis of the cluster analysis) it can be distinguished from both considering several additional parameters which are not included in cluster analysis. In case of C. biflorus subsp. punctatus it is e.g. the lack of both speckling on the outside of the outer segments and the black tips at the lower ends of the anthers. It is also different in having colourless filaments compared to the deep yellow ones of subsp. punctatus, and it has on average one more leaf. C. biflorus subsp. pulchricolor is much more colourful than C. biflorus subsp. caelestis, mostly rich blue-violet, darker towards the base of the segments, having a deep yellow throat, and distinct brown cataphylls, bracts, and bracteols.   
 D i s t r i b u t i o n a n d h a b i t a t: Turkey,Phrygia, Uşak Province. As yet only known from the type locality in the vicinity of the city of Uşak in open areas, light forests, scrub, together with Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana, Juniperus, Cistus laurifolius, Verbascum, Crocus chrysanthus, Ornithogalum, Colchicum and others. Crocus biflorus subsp. caelestis seems to prefer calcareous soils. No hybrids between C. chrysanthus and C. biflorus subsp. caelestis could be observed.
description: Published as part of Kerndorff, H. & Pasche, E., 2006, Crocus biflorus (Liliiflorae, Iridaceae) in Anatolia (Part Three), pp. 165-187 in Linzer biologische Beiträge 38 (1) on pages 179-180, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5432766