Fig 1.
The map of the studied area within Harghita county, Harghita Mountains and the protected areas ROSCI00090 Harghita–Mădăraș and ROSPA0034 Depresiunea și Munții Ciucului (map used by permission of National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita Territorial Service, Romania).
Fig 2.
Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó subsp. sooana (Borsos) Borsos entire plant in its natural habitat (Fig 2), details of the inflorescences (Figs 3 and 4).
One of the inflorescences (Fig 4) is visited by hoverfly of the family Syrphidae Latreille, 1802. The hoverflies, which are true bee-mimics, are very frequent visitors of D. fuschii subsp. sooana, although it has not been shown to be its real pollinators, as of yet. Figs 2–4 © 2020 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 3.
Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó subsp. sooana (Borsos) Borsos entire plant in its natural habitat (Fig 2), details of the inflorescences (Figs 3 and 4).
One of the inflorescences (Fig 4) is visited by hoverfly of the family Syrphidae Latreille, 1802. The hoverflies, which are true bee-mimics, are very frequent visitors of D. fuschii subsp. sooana, although it has not been shown to be its real pollinators, as of yet. Figs 2–4 © 2020 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 4.
Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó subsp. sooana (Borsos) Borsos entire plant in its natural habitat (Fig 2), details of the inflorescences (Figs 3 and 4).
One of the inflorescences (Fig 4) is visited by hoverfly of the family Syrphidae Latreille, 1802. The hoverflies, which are true bee-mimics, are very frequent visitors of D. fuschii subsp. sooana, although it has not been shown to be its real pollinators, as of yet. Figs 2–4 © 2020 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 5.
Pseudorchis albida (L.) Á.Löve & D.Löve subsp. tricuspis (Beck) E.Klein entire plant in its natural habitat (Fig 5), details of the inflorescences (Figs 6 and 7).
One of the inflorescences (Fig 7) is visited by hoverfly of the family Syrphidae Latreille, 1802. The hoverflies, which are true bee-mimics, are also very frequent visitors of Pseudorchis albida subsp. tricuspis, although it has not been shown to be its real pollinators, as of yet. Figs 5–7 © 2019 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 6.
Pseudorchis albida (L.) Á.Löve & D.Löve subsp. tricuspis (Beck) E.Klein entire plant in its natural habitat (Fig 5), details of the inflorescences (Figs 6 and 7).
One of the inflorescences (Fig 7) is visited by hoverfly of the family Syrphidae Latreille, 1802. The hoverflies, which are true bee-mimics, are also very frequent visitors of Pseudorchis albida subsp. tricuspis, although it has not been shown to be its real pollinators, as of yet. Figs 5–7 © 2019 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 7.
Pseudorchis albida (L.) Á.Löve & D.Löve subsp. tricuspis (Beck) E.Klein entire plant in its natural habitat (Fig 5), details of the inflorescences (Figs 6 and 7).
One of the inflorescences (Fig 7) is visited by hoverfly of the family Syrphidae Latreille, 1802. The hoverflies, which are true bee-mimics, are also very frequent visitors of Pseudorchis albida subsp. tricuspis, although it has not been shown to be its real pollinators, as of yet. Figs 5–7 © 2019 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 8.
This is the first image of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum ever taken by H. Kertész at 08:39:19am, on 30th of June, 2020.
Fig 9.
Morphological comparisons of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum and parents.
The following three comparison diagrams show the intermediate characters of the hybrid’s habitus (Fig 9), inflorescence (Fig 10) and flowers (Fig 11), compared to those of its parents. The hybrids are almost as tall as the parents. The hybrid’s inflorescence is less floriferous and flat topped, resembling more that of D. fuchsii subsp. sooana parent. The flowers’ labellum is deeply three-lobed, very similar to P. albida subsp. tricuspis’ labella. Figs 9–11 © 2020 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 10.
Morphological comparisons of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum and parents.
The following three comparison diagrams show the intermediate characters of the hybrid’s habitus (Fig 9), inflorescence (Fig 10) and flowers (Fig 11), compared to those of its parents. The hybrids are almost as tall as the parents. The hybrid’s inflorescence is less floriferous and flat topped, resembling more that of D. fuchsii subsp. sooana parent. The flowers’ labellum is deeply three-lobed, very similar to P. albida subsp. tricuspis’ labella. Figs 9–11 © 2020 N. Anghelescu originals.
Fig 11.
Morphological comparisons of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum and parents.
The following three comparison diagrams show the intermediate characters of the hybrid’s habitus (Fig 9), inflorescence (Fig 10) and flowers (Fig 11), compared to those of its parents. The hybrids are almost as tall as the parents. The hybrid’s inflorescence is less floriferous and flat topped, resembling more that of D. fuchsii subsp. sooana parent. The flowers’ labellum is deeply three-lobed, very similar to P. albida subsp. tricuspis’ labella. Figs 9–11 © 2020 N. Anghelescu originals.
Table 1.
Morphometric comparison of the putative parental species and the unique resulted hybrid.
Fig 12.
Chromosomes at somatic metaphase (Feulgen staining) of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum hybrid 2n = 40 (±2), no. 28–2 (Fig 12); no. 30–1 (Fig 13); no. 31–4 (Fig 14).
Scale bar = 1 μm.
Fig 13.
Chromosomes at somatic metaphase (Feulgen staining) of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum hybrid 2n = 40 (±2), no. 28–2 (Fig 12); no. 30–1 (Fig 13); no. 31–4 (Fig 14).
Scale bar = 1 μm.
Fig 14.
Chromosomes at somatic metaphase (Feulgen staining) of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum hybrid 2n = 40 (±2), no. 28–2 (Fig 12); no. 30–1 (Fig 13); no. 31–4 (Fig 14).
Scale bar = 1 μm.
Table 2.
Chromosome numbers of the specimens studied.
Fig 15.
The distribution map of × Pseudorhiza nieschalkii nothosubsp. siculorum in Harghita–Mădăraș protected area that yields the holotype and only known plant (map used by permission of National Agency for Protected Areas Harghita Territorial Service).