Type (lectotype designated here):—Illustration in Visiani & Pančić (1862: 450). (Fig. 5); Epitype (designated here by U. Buzurović):— SERBIA. Vujan, 26 June 2012, U. Buzurović s.n. (BEOU 34923!) (Fig. 6)

Additional specimens examined:— SERBIA. Raška, [1]861, J. Pančić s.n. (BEOU 6900!).

Note:— In the protologue, Visiani mentions as synonyms two names: “ Statice tatarica ” Pančić (1856: 90) and “ Statice serbica Visiani (in herb.)”. The former is just an indication that the name G. serbicum is based on the specimens previously identified by Pančić as S. tatarica, which excludes the type of S. tatarica Linnaeus (1753: 275). No specimens by Pančić named “ Statice tatarica ” and compatible with the protologue are to be found in Visiani’s collection. No specimen named “ S. serbica ” are to be found either in Visiani’s herbarium in PAD or elsewhere. Although this name was published by Visiani alone, Pančić and Visiani discussed this taxon together in their correspondence. It was Pančić who proposed that all corrections to his previous work (Pančić 1856) would only bear Visiani’s name, in a letter dated 18 February 1861 (“Le piante, che nella mia Enumerazione sono pubblicate sotto un nome che loro non conviene, porterebbero, da Lei rettificate, il suo nome solo, come Statice serbica Vis. etc. tutte le altre che giudicheremo nuove porteranno appo sé i nomi Visiani et Panč.”, i.e. “Those plants that in my Enumeration were published under an inconvenient name, will bear just your name, after your correction, like Statice serbica Vis. etc. all the others that we shall find new will bear upon them the names Visiani et Panč”). After a very thorough resarch of original material, only a specimen collected by Pančić in 1861 was found (BEOU 6900!). This specimen must represent also Visiani’s concept of the taxon, but since it might not have been seen by him, it cannot be considered original material (see also Art. 46.8. of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Therefore, the illustration published along with the protologue is the only conserved piece of original material, and it must be selected as a lectotype. Some important diagnostic characters are not clearly recognisable in the lectotype, including: pubescent mucro on the outer bract, size and relative length of the mucro on the inner bracts, number of flowers on each spikelet, hairiness of the calyx. For this reason, an epitype representing the modern concept of the species is selected to support the lectotype. This name is now treated as a synonym of Goniolimon tataricum (Linnaeus 1753: 275) Boiss. in Candolle 1848: 632) (Buzurović & al. 2013).