5Although the main objective of the International Code of Nomenclature for
algae, fungi, and plant (ICN; McNeill et al. 2012 ) is to ensure that there is only one
correct scientifi c name for every taxon, the existence of several different and incom-
patible taxonomic treatments result in the existence of many formally correct names
in use at the same time. This is especially true for taxa within Triticeae, since a reli-
able system of evolutionary relationships that can be used as a base for decision-
making is still lacking. Moreover, the priority rule of the ICN states “for any taxon
from family to genus inclusive, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one with
the same rank.” Although intended to result in taxonomic stability, it may lead to
changes of names even for taxonomic ranks not under debate if older legitimate
names are detected. A striking example in wheat grasses is the recent confusion
about the tribe’s name: Reveal ( 2004 , 2011 ) stated that Martinov designated the
name Hordeeae (as “Hordeaceae”) at the rank of tribe in 1820, implicating that
Triticeae would be a younger and therefore illegitimate name given by Dumortier in
- This resulted in a gradual renaming of the tribe from Triticeae into Hordeeae
till a recent survey by Welker et al. ( 2014 ) revealed a misreading of Martinov’s
work, as in it no specifi c taxonomic rank was assigned to Hordeeae. Hence, Triticeae
Dumortier (1824) remains the valid name for the tribe.
1.3 Taxonomic Treatments in Triticeae from
Linnaeus ( 1753 ) to Tzvelev ( 1976 )
Since the beginning of the Triticeae taxonomy, many considerably different classifi -
catory systems have been proposed by diverse authors. The treatments refl ect differ-
ent aims of taxonomists, the state of the art of classifi catory concepts, employed
methods, and recognized taxa of the time in which they were published. When
Linnaeus published his Species Plantarum in 1753, it was the start of modern bio-
logical (binomial) nomenclature , providing the names for plant classifi cations.
Early taxonomists like him aimed for a classifi cation that allowed taxa to be easily
recognized morphologically. They grouped species being similar to each other and
different to others into genera, thereby following a typological taxonomic concept
(Linnaeus 1753 ; Bentham 1882 ).
With the development of new species concepts and analysis techniques, taxono-
mists aimed for their classifi cation to refl ect the evolutionary history of the tribe.
Nevski ( 1934 ) was the fi rst to propose a classifi cation for Triticeae that refl ects the
tribe’s phylogeny. Thus it was largely different from earlier generic treatments (e.g.,
Bentham 1882 ) in the number of accepted genera and their description. Nevski was
well aware of the fact that morphological traits might evolve independently and
hence, might not necessarily refl ect evolution correctly. In addition to morphologi-
cal data, he included phytogeographic and cytogenetic data in his proposal.
Noteworthy is the taxon sampling, which covered the center of diversity of peren-
nial Triticeae. His work was adopted in the Flora of the USSR, but its application in
1 Taxonomic Treatments of Triticeae and the Wheat Genus Tr it icu m