Content uploaded by Lambros Tsounis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lambros Tsounis on Aug 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
237
PHYTOLOGIA BALCANICA 16 (2): 237 – 242 Sofia, 2010
Micromeria acropolitana (Lamiaceae)
rediscovered in Athens (Greece)
Kit Tan1, Gregory Tsounis2 & Lambros Tsounis2
1 Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2D, DK-1353
Copenhagen K, Denmark, e-mail: kitt@bio.ku.dk (author for correspondence)
2 Makriyanni Str. 7, Acropolis, Athens, Gr 117 42 , Greece,
e-mail: greenapple@greenapple.gr
Received: May 02, 2010 ▷ Accepted: May 28, 2010
Abstract. Micromeria acropolitana (Lamiaceae) was first collected in 1906 from the Acropolis, Athens and considered
extinct until its rediscovery in 2006, a hundred years later. Its greatest threat within the archaeological site
is human disturbance. It has survived in its original habitat, the natural rock of the hill. Its correct name is
confirmed and its affinities to other species demonstrated by illustrations.
Key words: Acropolis, archaeological site, extinction, flora, Greece, Micromeria, rediscovery, taxonomy
René C.J.E. Maire (1876–1949) and Marcel G.C.
Petitmengin (1881–1908) were two French bota-
nists and explorers who collected in the Peloponnese
and Sterea Ellas during 1904 and 1906. It was during a
visit to the Acropolis on 30 August 1906 that they dis-
covered the plant later to be published by Halácsy as
Micromeria acropolitana. Maire and Petitmengin’s pub-
lications in 1907 and 1908 contain descriptions of new
taxa, many new combinations and new records based
on their specimens which are kept at the University of
Montpellier (MPU) and University of Nancy, France
(NCY). The 1908 article was issued twice with different
pagination, as a separate publication and in a periodi-
cal. It is not clear which was published first.
Eugen von Halácsy (1842–1913) was an Austrian
physician and botanist of Hungarian descent. He made
two expeditions to Greece in 1888 and 1893, the results of
which were published in a series of contributions, main-
ly in Austrian journals. His floristic work in Greece was
summarized in 3 volumes of Conspectus Florae Graecae
(1900–04, with supplements in 1908 and 1912); this is a
careful and accurate work still a major source of informa-
tion. His Greek herbarium is kept separately at the Uni-
versity of Vienna (WU); it includes his own specimens
and many duplicates by other collectors.
Gregory Tsounis is a biologist interested in the flo-
ra and fauna of Greece. Together with his 17-year old
son Lambros he started to investigate the Acropolis
and the surrounding archaeological sites and areas:
Filopappou hill, hill of the Nymphs, Arios Pagos, Pla-
ka, the ancient Agora, Kerameikos, Temple of Olym-
pian Zeus and the Ilissos River which runs partly un-
derground through Athens but is dry in the summer.
Archaeological sites are often rich in anthropogenic
species and sometimes the last bastion of rare and en-
demic taxa. The Acropolis of Athens has offered sanc-
tuary to a small perennial labiate for more than 5000
years, long before the dawn of Greek civilisation. Its
greatest threat is human intervention. Artemis Yannit-
saros, former professor of botany at the University of
Athens, writes in 1998: “Acropolis seems to have been
deprived of at least one of its species, strictly endemic,
that is of a unique species of this area only. This is Mi-
cromeria acropolitana or Satureja acropolitana (Halác-
sy) Greuter & Burdet, of the Labiatae family, which
must be considered today as a species disappeared not
238 Tan, Kit & al. • Micromeria acropolitana rediscovered in Athens
only from the Hellenic but from the global flora”. These
are dramatic statements, likewise echoed by Zervou &
Yannitsaros (1999) and Phitos & al. (1995) in a Red Da-
ta Book of Greece. Theophanis Constantinidis, a bota-
nist now at the University of Athens, wrote in the Greek
newspaper ‘Kathimerini’ published on 31 August 2003,
“The mysterious Micromeria acropolitana (Micromer-
ia of Acropolis) is a small and humble perennial species
growing exclusively in the rock of Acropolis, which,
for about a century now, nobody has ever seen again,
neither in the rock of Acropolis nor anywhere else”.
Thus despite floristic investigation of the area by Pater-
son (1979), Sarlis (1994), Zervou & Yannitsaros (1999)
and other researchers, no one seems to have rediscov-
ered the plant. It was declared under official protection
(Presidential Decree 67 for protection of wild flora and
fauna) as from 30 January 1981.
The locus classicus is the famed landmark of
Greece, the Acropolis which is a limestone rock 156
m high. Its greatest length is 300 m and its greatest
width c. 150 m. The rock is trapezoid in shape and its
surface fairly level with a slight inclination from east
to west. The ancient Greeks often built their cities on
hills, protected by strong walls and the Acropolis was
thus the fortified part and highest point of old Athens.
The first inhabitants settled on the Acropolis in 4000
BC and during the Mycenaean period (1600–1100
BC) the Acropolis and the city of Athens were the cen-
tres of political power. The Acropolis hill is mainly of
limestone. Rainwater over the centuries has dissolved
away the softer parts to form clefts and small caves.
The open cracks and fissures on the hill especially at
the archaeological site have now been sealed with ce-
ment to reduce erosion from acid rain.
During their wanderings on the site in 2006, two of
the authors (GT and LT) found a small population of
50–60 plants which they thought must surely represent
the long-vanished M. acropolitana. They kept the plants
under observation for a year and noted that the main
flowering period was May and June. No bees, wasps or
butterflies were seen to pollinate the flowers but ants
were observed carrying away the small dark reddish-
brown seeds to their colonies in cracks and crevices with
little soil and this is presumably how the plant spreads
on the site. In June 2009 they thought it was time to
confirm the identity of their plant, to see if it was indeed
M. acropolitana Halácsy. A visit to the website of the
Herbarium of the Institute of Botany at the University
of Vienna gave them confidence as the plants they had
been observing these three years seemed identical to
the type specimen of M. acropolitana deposited there.
Nevertheless, they were eager for a concrete and scien-
tific opinion. They decided to contact the botanist Kit
Tan (KT) from the University of Copenhagen who was
well-known for her research on the Greek flora. They
were slightly apprehensive as no one has rediscovered
M. acropolitana since Maire and Petitmengin in 1906
and it was now a hundred years later.
They sent three digital images of their plant to KT
at Copenhagen. She responded immediately with a
request to send specimens for further study as noth-
ing critical can be identified from photographs. So
they sent seven specimens to Copenhagen.
KT replied that six of them are a variant of M. ju-
liana (L.) Benth. ex Rchb. but the seventh looked in-
teresting and she would check further with four other
taxa which are superficially similar. They soon re-
ceived confirmation on 16 June 2009 that their plant
was indeed the long-lost, elusive endemic of the rock
of Acropolis. You can imagine their joy was tremen-
dous at this good news. KT came to the site on 8 Ju-
ly 2009 together with Gert Vold from the Copenhagen
Botanical Garden to see the plants herself.
A plant population of ca. 100 individuals monitored
by GT and LT has remained steady all these years and
showed a slight increase in numbers in 2009 due to
the plentiful and prolonged winter rains. Wall crevi ces
and broken marble with a little soil seem to be the fa-
voured habitats. There were ca. 50 plants in frequently
visited parts of the site, less than 30 cm away from be-
ing trodden. Careful searching also revealed plants on
the northern, eastern, western and southern slopes of
the natural rock. It is estimated that the total number of
plants on the Acropolis must be at least 400. Certainly
the greatest threat to survival on the archaeological site
itself would be human activity, with constant trampling
by tourists and constant cleaning of the stonework. It is
amazing that the plant has indeed survived there long-
er than the dawn of Greek civilisation, longer than 5000
years. However, it is probable that the species will al-
ways survive on the natural rock of the hill (Fig. 1).
The Director of the archaeological site has prom-
ised to ensure the survival of this species. With 11,000
daily visitors at the opening of the new Acropolis Mu-
seum and thousands at the height of the tourist season
he realized that the care of the Acropolis, the great his-
toric monument to Greek civilisation, has to achieve a
fine balance with the care for the monument’s one and
239Phytol. Balcan. 16(2) • Sofia • 2010
only endangered endemic plant which should like-
wise be treated as part of the Greek natural heritage.
When KT visited the site in summer, two women were
busy weeding and cleaning near scaffolding and re-
construction work. They filled four large black sacks
of vegetation in a short time. KT requested one of the
sacks and took it away for examination. No Micro-
meria, not even the common species M. juliana, was
present in the sack. The contents were plants easily de-
termined by their familiarity. They include:
Ailanthus altissima (should be eradicated from the
site), Asplenium ceterach, Asplenium trichomanes, Au-
rinia saxatilis subsp. orientalis, Centaurea raphanina
subsp. mixta
Chondrilla ramosissima, Convolvulus sp. (perhaps
cantabrica as seen on Mt Lycabettos)
Convolvulus elegantissimus, Conyza albida, Cyno-
don dactylon (introduced, seems to be first report for
eparchia Pireos), Digitaria ischaemum, Hyoscyamus
albus, Minuartia attica (probably), Nicotiana glauca,
Parietaria judaica (in great quantities), Peganum har-
mala (now not so common in Greece but still existing
at Acropolis as this is a “protected” area)
Piptatherum miliaceum, Reichardia picroides, Scler-
anthus perennis probably subsp. marginatus, Scrophu-
laria heterophylla, Umbilicus horizontalis.
Taxonomy and affinities to
other species
The correct name for the species is Micromeria acropo-
litana Halácsy and not Satureja acropolitana (Halácsy)
Greuter & Burdet. The main difference between Mi-
cromeria and Satureja can be briefly summarized as
follows.
Micromeria: leaves with sclerenchymatous, thick-
ened, ± entire margin.
Satureja: leaves without thickened margin.
Based on this easily observed generic character,
M. acropolitana is a “true” Micromeria; this is also
borne out by other correlating characters of calyx, co-
rolla lip, staminal length, etc.
Bräuchler (2008: 367) states that the correct name
should be M. acropolitana Halácsy ex Maire & Petit-
mengin but this is not correct. Maire & Petitmengin
(1908) clearly indicate Halácsy as the sole author of
M. acropolitana (Fig. 2). They reproduced the origi-
nal description made by Halácsy who first thought to
name the species M. athenae n. sp. (Fig. 3) but later
chose acropolitana as a more suitable epithet. Halácsy
prepared the description for publication in the Con-
spectus (1908) and considers himself as the sole au-
thor as he makes no reference to Maire & Petitmengin
as having contributed to the description in any way
(Fig. 4). Maire & Petitmengin’s article (May 1908) was
issued before Halácsy’s Conspectus (June 1908) but
the intent of Maire & Petitmengin to ascribe author-
ship to Halácsy is apparent and they did so. Maire &
Petimengin’s article was also issued as a separate pub-
lication with a different pagination, again Halácsy was
cited as the sole author. It is important to note that
in the Maire & Petitmengin articles the authorship of
ALL taxa are cited, ascribed to the person who had
first described it. All taxa published by themselves as
new have their own names as joint authorship with the
exception of M. acropolitana and a few others.
Bräuchler (2008: 367) writes “Nowhere in the
treatment … is stated that Halácsy contributed to the
de scription[s] in any way. The authorship therefore
has to be attributed to Maire & Petitmengin”. In this
Fig. 1. Micromeria acropolitana in its natural habitat (photo L.
Tsounis).
240 Tan, Kit & al. • Micromeria acropolitana rediscovered in Athens
Bräuchler is quite erroneous for not only
did Halácsy contribute to the description,
he wrote all of it and Maire & Petitmengin
reproduced his text most faithfully in their
publication as well as indicating clearly that
Halácsy was sole author. The description of
M. athenae by Halácsy as filed in herbari-
um WU-Hal. leaves no doubt that Maire &
Petitmengin was aware of it as it is identical to the de-
scription published by them.
Perhaps the designation of the specimen in WU-Hal
as a lectotype by Bräuchler (2008: 367) is somewhat su-
perfluous. Maire & Petitmengin (1908) states “Typus in
herb. Univ. Nanceiensis et in herb. Halácsy”. Bräuchler
writes that the NCY ‘syntype’ could not be traced so far
… and the WU ‘syntype’ after several fruitless efforts
found by H. Rainer & W. Till …”. But the specimens
are not ambiguous syntypes. Both are duplicates of the
same gathering, namely Maire & Petitmengin no. 1073
collected from the Acropolis in 1906. The fact that the
NCY specimen could not be traced so far does not ne-
gate its potential as the holotype with the isotype being
the duplicate specimen deposited at WU. As the speci-
men was collected by Maire & Petitmengin, we see no
reason to doubt that Halácsy would have refused them
their own material to be deposited in NCY. It would be
logical to follow what is cited in the publication, that
NCY has the holotype (first citation) and WU-Hal the
isotype (next citation).
Bräuchler & al. (2008: 367) considered M. acropoli-
tana (Fig. 5a) to be conspecific with or very similar to
four closely related species. He said that “it seems very
similar to the type of M. sphaciotica Boiss. & Heldr.
ex Benth. and thus might not be specifically distinct
from M. microphylla (d’Urv.) Benth.”. M. microp-
hylla (Fig. 5b) was originally described from Malta
and M. sphaciotica Boiss. & Heldr. (Fig. 5c) is ende-
mic to Crete. As evident from the illustration (Fig. 5),
the three species differ in details of stem indumentum,
leaves and calyx structure. Next Bräuchler
(2008: 372) equates M. carpatha Rech. fil.
(endemic to Karpathos) with M. sphacio tica
which he had considered as conspecific with
M. microphylla. M. carpatha (Fig. 5d) is an
entirely different taxon from M. sphaciotica,
the differences are clear from their stem in-
dumentum, leaf and calyx structure. Final-
ly Bräuchler (2008: 387) con siders M. hispi-
da Boiss. & Heldr. from Crete (Fig. 5e) to be
Fig. 3. Micromeria athenae n. sp. as described by Halácsy ( le
WU-Halácsy Graecum 0040407).
Fig. 4. Halácsy, Consp. Fl. Graec. Suppl. 1: 87 (June 1908).
Fig. 2. Maire & Petitmengin, Matér. étude . geogr. bot. Orient. 4: 179 (1908).
241
Phytol. Balcan. 16(2) • Sofia • 2010
Fig. 5: a, Micromeria acropolitana; b, M. microphylla; c, M. sphaciotica; d, M. carpatha; e, M. hispida.
a
b
d
c
e
242 Tan, Kit & al. • Micromeria acropolitana rediscovered in Athens
conspecific with M. microphylla, again the difference
in stem indumentum is apparent from the illustration.
The conclusion reached by the authors of this article is
that M. acropolitana is a distinct species and not iden-
tical to the four taxa named.
Acknowledgements. Alexandros Mantis, Dimitris Bithas, the
staff of the department of prehistoric-classical antiquities and the
guards of the Acropolis are thanked for their courtesy and help. Anna
Skoumalová-Hadacová prepared the excellent illustration (Fig. 5).
References
Bräuchler, C., Ryding, O. & Heubl, G. 2008. The genus Micromeria
(Lamiaceae), a synoptical update. – Willdenowia, 38: 363-410.
Halácsy, E. v. 1908. Conspectus Florae Graecae. Suppl. 1: 87. Leipzig.
Maire, R. & Petitmengin, M. 1908. Étude des plantes vasculaires
récoltées en Grèce (1906). – In: Maire, R., Matér. étude fl. geogr.
bot. Orient. 4, separately published in Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy, ser,
3, 9 (1908).
Paterson, A. 1979. Plants about the Parthenon. – Garden (London),
104(2): 63-65.
Phitos, D., Strid, A., Snogerup, S. & Greuter, W. (eds). 1995. The
Red Data Book of rare and threatened plants of Greece. WWF,
Greece.
Sarlis, G.P. 1994. Contribution to the study of the flora of Attica
(Greece). – Lagascalia, 17(2): 229-256.
Zervou, S. & Yannitsaros, A. 1999. Flora of the Acropolis of Athens
and of the surrounding archaeological area. – In: Eleftheriou,
E.P. (ed.), Proc. 7th Panhellenic Sci. Conf., Alexandroupolis, pp.
342-347. Univ. Studio Press, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
