sign in sign up
<<
Home , Iridaceae, Irideae, Iridoideae, Iris (plant), Iris albicans, Iris florentina

Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X

NOMENCLATURAL TYPES OF IBERIAN IRISES ( AND RELATED GENERA, )

Manuel B. CRESPO VILLALBA CIBIO, Instituto de la Biodiversidad. Universidad de Alicante. P.O. Box 99. E-03080 Alicante. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Nomenclatural types are reported for seventeen taxa belonging to Iris and six related genera, which are accepted in the forthcoming treatment of Iridaceae for Flora iberica. Among them, 13 lectotypes and one neotype are designated for the first time, and three previous typifications are briefly commented. Keywords: Iris, Chamaeiris, Juno, Limniris, Xiphion, Hermodactylus, Gynandriris, nomenclature, typi- fication, Iberian Peninsula.

RESUMEN: Tipos nomenclaturales de lirios ibéricos (Iris y géneros relaciona- dos, Iridaceaae). Se presentan los tipos nomenclaturales de 17 táxones pertenecientes a Iris y otros seis géneros relacionados, que se aceptan en el tratamiento de las Iridace- ae para Flora iberica. De ellos, se designan por primera vez 13 lectótipos y un neótipo, y se comentan brevemente tres tipificaciones previas. Palabras clave: Iris, Chamaei- ris, Juno, Limniris, Xiphion, Hermodactylus, Gynandriris, nomenclatura, tipificación, Península Ibérica.

INTRODUCTION others), whereas others were accepted as separate genera (cf. PARLATORE, 1860; Iridaceae will be included in the KLATT, 1864, 1866; BAKER, 1877; forthcoming volume XX of Flora iberica. VALENTINE, 1980; RODIONENKO, As a part of the editorial task, data on no- 1961, 2005, 2007, 2009; MAVRODIEV, menclatural types will be reported for all 2010; among others). accepted taxa in the family. Some of the In any case, important morphological occurring in the Iberian Peninsula differences exist among those seven ag- have already been typified, though many gregates, which allow recognition of uni- irises are still in need of typification. que morphological syndromes for each Irises will be arranged in Flora iberi- . Furthermore, recent molecular stu- ca in seven genera, some of them being dies by WILSON (2011) have shown that circumscribed in a narrower sense: Iris all those groups, as well as other extra-Ibe- L., Chamaeiris Medik., Juno Tratt., Lim- rian aggregates, are monophyletic. On this niris (Tausch) Fourr., Xiphion Mill., Her- basis, a new arrangement of the whole modactylus Mill., and Gynandriris Parl. ‘Iris-’ clade is being undertaken (not included in Mill.). Many of (CRESPO & MARTÍNEZ-AZORÍN, in these groups were treated at different prep.), and it will be ready for publication ranks in Iris s.l. (cf. BAKER, 1892; DY- soon. KES, 1912; LAWRENCE, 1953; MA- In the present contribution, types are THEW, 1989; WILSON, 2011; among indicated for all taxa accepted in Flora

49 Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises iberica, according to the International ges in the second edition of Species plan- Code of Botanical Nomenclature –ICBN– tarum (LINNAEUS, 1762), together with (McNEILL et al., 2006). Basionyms are synonymy, geographic distribution and a grouped in the seven genera cited above, short diagnosis comparing it with I. ger- and every accepted name is marked in manica. Among synonyms, Linnaeus ci- bold. For typification of Linnaean names, ted the figure no. 154 of MILLER (1757), all information presented by JARVIS which the latter author named Iris orien- (2007) has been carefully checked. talis Mill. in the eighth edition of his ce- lebrated Gardeners’ Dictionary (1768). This taxon corresponds to Chamaeiris RESULTS AND DISCUSSION orientalis (Mill.) M.B. Crespo, and has I. ochroleuca L. in synonymy. Nonetheless, The genus Iris L. (sensu stricto) as suggested by DYKES (1912) and MA-

THEW (1989), Linnaeus surely intended 1. Iris germanica L., Sp. Pl.: 38 (1753) to describe a white-flowered bearded iris Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Germaniae editis” Lectotypus [designated by B. MATHEW in (Iris sect. Iris) related to I. germanica L., JARVIS & al. (1993: 57)]: Herb. Clifford: as deduced from the diagnosis and the 18, Iris 2 (BM 000557643) rest of pre-Linnaean polynomials he ad- ded in 1762. Therefore, KER GAWLER The lectotype selected by MATHEW (1803) interpreted I. florentina as a vari- (1989) shows a scape with short bran- ant of I. germanica with pearl-white flo- ches, and it possibly comes from a wers, and brought accurate descriptions smaller than usual, as suggested by DY- and illustrations for both taxa. From that KES (1912: 6). Nonetheless, it matches time, his concept has been adopted wide- the concept widely accepted for this spe- ly to represent the true ‘Florentine iris’. cies and is an appropriate election. However, the original Linnaean con- The previous type designation of the cept of I. florentina was wider than it is sheet Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.6 (LINN; now accepted by botanists, and probably image available at www.linnean- also included I. albicans Lange. It can be online.org/804/) by LABANI & EL-GA- deduced from synonyms explicitly men- DI (1980: 7) is to be superseded, since it tioned in the second edition of Species is a post-1753 accession and therefore is plantarum (e.g. BAUHIN, 1671; RAY, not original material for the name (JAR- 1688), as well as those indirectly associa- VIS, 2007). ted (e.g. DODOENS, 1583; BAUHIN, 1658; CLUSIUS, 1601; among others). 2. L., Syst. Nat. ed. 10: Furthermore, the final part of the diagno- 863 (1759) [“florentin.”] sis in the protologue of I. florentina (flo- [Iris germanica var. florentina (L.) Dy- ribus sessilibus) could be argued to fit kes, Genus Iris: 164 (1912)] more properly I. albicans. Ind. loc.: “Habitat [in Europa australi-Carnio- la.] Sp. Pl. ed. 2: 55 (1762)” This fact would explain that I. floren- Neotypus (hic designatus): K 000524326 tina had sometimes been regarded to in- clude I. albicans, a species that differs In the protologue, LINNAEUS (1759) from the Linnaean taxon by its sessile or did not include any element useful for ty- almost sessile pure-white , and the pification of this name. The original diag- unbranched or very shortly branched sca- nostic phrases “I. corollis barbatis, caule pe (Figs. 1 & 2). Studies by DYKES foliis altiore subbifloro, floribus sessi- (1910, 1912) contributed decisively to libus” was reproduced later without chan- normalize circumscription of both names.

50 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO

Consequently, the sheet K 000524326 comm.), and possibly could have been (Fig. 1) is designated as neotype of Iris related to from which the illustra- florentina, a specimen that was collected tion of KEW GAWLER (1803) was in 1957 and labelled as being “the Iris drawn. This specimen allows maintaining florentina of the Bot. Mag. t. 671 current usage of that name as it was for (1803)”. It most likely came from the li- more than 100 years, though usually trea- ving collections at Kew (‘H.K.’ – Herba- ted as I. germanica var. florentina (L.) ceous Kewensis; WALSINGHAM, pers. Dykes.

Fig. 1. Neotype of Iris florentina L. (© Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew).

51 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises

3. Lange in Vidensk. Med- reux: on la cultive au Jardin du Roi, où del. Naturhist. Foren. Kjøbenhavn ser. elle fleurit au moins de Mai” 2, 1: 76 (1860) Lectotypus (hic designatus): “ [I. florentina var. albicans (Lange) Baker lutea - tube de la cor. couvert et de la lon- in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 16: 146 (1877) ≡ I. geur de la spathe” (P-LAM 00382910). florentina subsp. albicans (Lange) K. Richt., Pl. Eur. 1: 255 (1890) ≡ I. germa- A sheet exists in Lamarck’s herbari- nica subsp. albicans (Lange) O. Bolòs & um at P (image available at www. la- Vigo, Fl. Països Catalans 4: 158 (2001)] marck.cnrs.fr/herbier.php; liasse no. 80, Ind. loc.: “E tuberibus ad oppidum Almeria page no. 7) that bears 4 flowering stems lectis in hort. bot. Hafn. floruit 8 Jun. plus several unattached , fitting 1858. Ulterius observanda!” well the original description of I. lutes- Lectotypus (hic designatus): “Culta in hort. cens. No direct reference to that binomial bot. hafn. 8 jun. 1858… e tuberibus in is found on that collection, though it is a Hispania lectis. Joh. Lange” (C, s.n.!) Lamarckian handwriting with both the of this species were collec- polynomial ‘Iris pumila lutea’ and a short sentence on features of spathes and co- ted near Almería (SE of ) on De- cember 1851 (cf. LANGE, 1866: 19, tab. rolla tube, which match perfectly the pro- XXXIII), and they were grown later in tologue (cf. LAMARCK, 1789). This ele- the of Copenhagen. ment is selected as the obligate lectotype Flowers were obtained for the first time of the species, which otherwise is not na- in 1858, and plants still bloomed in follo- tive to Germany, contrarily to the indica- wing years, as said in the protologue. tion in the protologue. A sheet exists at C that is regarded as the type of Lange’s species. That collec- The genus Chamaeiris Medik. tion is probably the only extant original material, and it matches perfectly the pro- 5. L., Sp. Pl.: 39 (1753) [Chamaeiris graminea (L.) Medik. in tologue. A label with Lange’s handwrit- Hist. & Commentat. Acad. Elect. Sci. ing is attached, together with another mo- Theod.-Palat. 6: 418 (1790)] re recent one suggesting that the sheet co- Ind. loc.: “Habitat in ad radices mon- uld be the true type material of the name tium” (HANSEN, pers. comm.). Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herb. Clifford: However, it is not possible to ascer- 19, Iris 10 (BM 000557648) tain if the cited collection was the only element on which the description was ba- Several materials exist among the sed. Lange’s plants flowered at C several Linnaean collections that are relevant for times prior to publication of the new spe- typification of this name (cf. JARVIS, cies, and maintained their morphological 2007). The sheet Herb. Linnaeus no. 17.9 features unchanged (cf. LANGE, 1860, (S; image available at linnaeus.nrm. 1866). Any of those materials could have se/botany/fbo/i/iris/irisgra.html.en) inclu- been used for that purpose. des two fragments fitting the original des- Therefore, the sheet at C (Fig. 2) is se- cription and the current concept of this lected as the obligate lectotype of I. albi- species, but they are post-1753 accessions cans. from Alstroemer, and are ineligible as type. 4. Lam., Encycl. 3(1): 297 The sheet Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.15 (1789) (LINN; image available at www. linnean- Ind. loc.: “Cette Iris croît en , en Alle- online.org/813/), which corresponds to magne, &c. aux lieux montagneux & pier- num. 4 of Amman’s collection, bears

52 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO number ‘13’ of , but it Finally, the sheet BM 000557648 in- is indeed Ker Gawl., as cludes two fragments that match the pro- SALISBURY (in sched.) and DYKES tologue. It corresponds to Herb. Clifford: (1912: 6) indicated. Besides, the sheet no. 19, Iris 10 (image available at www 61.16 (LINN; image available at .nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/pro www.linnean-online.org/814/) also inclu- jects/clifford-herbarium/search/), and it is des material of this species with the anno- designated here as the lectotype of I. gra- tation ‘graminea’ in Linnaeus fil. hand- minea, which is also the type species of writing, it being not original material and genus Chamaeiris Medik. (cf. CRESPO, hence not suitable for typification. 2011: 65).

Fig. 2. Lectotype of Iris albicans Lange (© Herbarium C, Statens Haturhistoriske Museum, Copenhagen).

53 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises

6. Iris reichenbachiana Klatt in Linnaea Between the remaining two elements, 34: 613 (1866) the plate of “Spatula foetida” in DODO- [Chamaeiris reichenbachiana (Klatt) ENS (1583: 247) is a good choice for lec- M.B. Crespo in Flora Montiber. 49: 68 totype of I. foetidissima. It is compara- (2011)] tively more accurate and complete than Ind. loc.: “Hab. Alger, dans les prairies, leg. those of “Spatula foetida, plerisque Xy- Bové. – Herb. Reg. Berol.” ris” in BAUHIN & CHERLER (1651: Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herbier de Mauritanie. Alger, dans les prairies. N. 731): a fruiting specimen on the upper Bové. Mai 1837 (CGE 12660!), as “Iris part of the cited page, and a flowering spuria L.” [holotype missing at B] one on the lower. With regard to the combination in KLATT (1866) explicitly cited in the Chamaeiris, Medikus referred it as “Ch. protologue that the holotype was housed foetida”, though he cited the basyonym as at B. Now it seems to be missing at Ber- “I. foetida L.” and linked it to the same lin (VOGT, pers. comm.), though fortu- Linnaean : ‘Spatha foetida Do- nately several isotypes of Bové’s collec- don. p. 245’ (DODONAEUS, 1583). As tion are found in European herbaria (e.g. discussed by CRESPO (2011), it should C, CGE, G, K, P). Among them, we des- be treated as an orthographic error with- ignate the sheet CGE 12660 (Cambridge out nomenclatural consequences, and the University) as lectotype (ICBN, art. 9.9), combination should undoubtedly be at- since it is well conserved and bears a tributed to Medikus. completely developed flower (Fig. 3). Genus Juno Tratt. 7. L., Sp. Pl.: 39 (1753) [Chamaeiris foetidissima (L.) Medik. in 8. Xiphion planifolium Mill., Gard. Dict. Hist. & Commentat. Acad. Elect. Sci. ed. 8: nº 4 (1768) Theod.-Palat. 6: 418 (1790), “foetida”] [Juno planifolia (Mill.) Asch. in Bot. Zei- Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Gallia, Anglia, Hetruria” tung (Berlin) 22: 114 (1864) ≡ Iris plani- Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Dodo- folia (Mill.) Durand & Schinz, Consp. Fl. ens, Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 247 (1583), “Spa- Afr. 5: 669 (1894)] tula foetida” Ind. loc.: “The forth sort [Xiphion planifolium] grows naturally in Spain and Portugal” Among the elements cited in the Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] J. Bau- protologue (LINNAEUS, 1753), four are hin & Cherler, Hist. Pl. 2: 703 (1651), relevant for typification of this name. “Iris bulbosa latifolia flore caeruleo & First, the sheet Herb. Clifford 19, Iris 10 candido” (BM 000557648) corresponds indeed to I. graminea as said before, and was proba- No herbarium material of this taxon is bly included by error, it being not appro- currently found among Miller’s collec- priate as the type. Secondly, the sheet tions at OXF, in Oxford University (S.K. Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.8 (LINN; image MARNER, pers. comm.). In the protolo- available at www.linnean-online. org/ gue, however, reference is explicitly ma- 806/) includes a single flower of the true de to “Iris bulbosa latifolia, flore caeru- I. foetidissima, and it is annotated “HU/8/ leo J.B. 2 703”, which refers to BAUHIN Iris foetidissima”. Most probably, & CHERLER (1651: 703). These authors DYKES (1912: 50) indirectly referred to described the species under the name that collection, though it cannot be ac- “Iris bulbosa latifolia, flore caeruleo & cepted as a valid typification according to candido”, including a good drawing that the ICBN (McNeill et al., 2006). fits well the current concept of that name,

54 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO and they also brought additional reference Genus Limniris (Tausch) Rchb. to Clusius’s “Iris bulbosa latifolia, sive I” (cf. CLUSIUS, 1601: 210), which repre- 9. L., Sp. Pl.: 38 (1753) sents Miller’s taxon too. Therefore, the [Limniris pseudacorus (L.) Fuss, Fl. cited drawing in Bauhin & Cherler, which Transsilv.: 636 (1866) ≡ Xiphion pseuda- depicts a plant occurring in Portugal and corus (L.) Schrank, Fl. Monac. 1, tab. 9 southern Spain, is here selected as the (1811) ≡ Limnirion pseudacorus (L.) Opiz, ≡ lectotype of the name. Seznam: 59 (1852), nom. inval. Xyridi-

Fig. 3. Lectotype of Iris reichenbachiana Klatt (© Herbarium CGE, Cambridge University).

55 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises

on pseudacorus (L.) Klatt in Bot. Zeitung “β Iris bulbosa caeruleo-violacea Bauh. (Berlin) 30: 500 (1872) ≡ Pseudo-iris pa- pin. 40” in the Linnaean protologue cor- lustris Medik. in Hist. & Commentat. responds to X. vulgare, whereas the syno- Acad. Elect. Sci. Theod.-Palat. 6: 417 nym “Iris bulbosa latifolia caule donata ≡ (1790), nom. illeg., syn. subst. I. lutea Bauh. pin. 38” appears to belong to X. la- Lam., Fl. Fr. 3: 496 (1779), nom. illeg., tifolium (see below for further discussion syn. subst.] Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Europa ad ripas paludum on that taxon). fossarum” Nonetheless, when MILLER (1768) Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herb. Linnaeus synonymised “Iris bulbosa, flore caeru- no. 61.7 (LINN) leo violaceo C.B.P. 38” to his X. vulgare (even with a wrong page citation of Bau- Three elements are relevant for typifi- hin’s Pinax), the circumscription of the cation of this name. First, the description latter name was restricted and clearly se- and plate of “Acorus adulterinus” in parated from X. latifolium, in a sense that BAUHIN (1653: 633) correspond to this has remained until today. Accordingly, species, though the latter illustrates an a- the sheet Herb. Clifford: 20 Iris: 12 (BM typical specimen with unbranched stems. 000557649; image available at ww

Secondly, the specimen Herb. Clifford: w.nhm.ac.uk / research-curation / research /

19, Iris 6 (BM 000557646; image avail- projects / clifford-herbarium / search/) in able at www.nhm.ac.uk/research- which a fragment is found fitting well the curation/research/projects/clifford-herbari current concept of I. xiphium (Xiphion um/search/) includes only a one-flowered vulgare), is designated as lectotype to lateral branch of an , which maintain the traditional use of the Lin- matches the current concept of the spe- naean name. cies. Finally, the sheet Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.7 (LINN; image available at 11. Iris lusitanica Ker Gawl. in Bot. Mag. www.linnean-online.org/805/) bears a 18, tab. 679 (1803) more complete and representative frag- [Xiphion vulgare var. lusitanicum (Ker ment, and is a good choice as lectotype. Gawl.) Baker in Gard. Chron. ser. 2, 5: 559 (1876) ≡ X. sordidum Sol. ex Salisb. Genus Xiphion Tourn. ex Mill. in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 303 (1812) ≡ [“Xiphium”], nom. illeg., syn. subst. X. lusitanicum (Ker Gawl.) Alef. in Bot. Zei- 10. L., Sp. Pl.: 40 (1753) tung (Berlin) 21: 297 (1863) ≡ Iris xiphi- [I. coronaria Salisb., Prodr. Stirp. Chap. um var. lusitanica (Ker Gawl.) Foster, Allerton: 45 (1796), nom. illeg., syn. . Iris.: 65 (1892)] subst. ≡ Xiphion angustifolium Tourn. ex Ind. loc.: “ in rich spots, as well as on rocky Klatt in Linnaea 34: 569 (1868), nom. il- hills, near the Tagus above Lisbon”. leg., syn. subst. = Xiphion vulgare Mill., Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Clus., Gard. Dict. ed. 8: nº 2 (1768)] Rar. Pl. Hist. 1: 212 (1601), “Iris bulbosa Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Hispania” flavo flo[re], sive V” Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herb. Clifford: 20, Iris: 12 (BM 000557649) This taxon was described and illustra- ted by KER GAWLER (1803: tab. 679), As argued by BAKER (1877, 1892) who appeared to be certainly disappoin- and DYKES (1912: 214-215), the origi- ted, from individuals with yellow-flowers nal Linnaean concept of I. xiphium also tinged with -blue, which can be in- included Xiphion latifolium Mill. [Iris la- terpreted as transitional to Xiphion vulga- tifolia (Mill.) Voss]. In fact, as evidenced re var. vulgare (whose flowers are basi- by EHRHART (1792: 139-141), cally bluish or lilac-blue). Nonetheless, as

56 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO he mentioned, from the beginning of the Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Besler, XIX century the name Iris lusitanica was Hort. Eystett. 2 [Classis Aestiva], Ord. 4, applied by horticulturists to full yellow- fol. 9, fig. 1 (1613), “Iris bulbosa, An- flowered plants growing in the central- glica, flore coeruleo” western Iberian Peninsula (from the Por- tuguese Estremadura to the Spanish Ex- In the protologue, MILLER (1768) re- tremadura). fers directly to ‘Xiphion latifolium, caule Yellow-flowered plants from the sur- donatum, flore caeruleo. Tourn. Inst. R. roundings of Lisbon had already been H. 363’. This polynomial was published illustrated by CLUSIUS (1601: 212) as by TOURNEFORT (1719) in connection with “Iris bulbosa, latifolia, caule do- “Iris bulbosa flavo flo. sive V” and had also been described accurately under the nata, flore coeruleo C. B. Pin. 38. Iris name “Iris bulbosa IIII, sive lutea” in the bulbosa, Anglica, flore coeruleo Eyst.” same work. Therefore, that illustration is Among all those elements, the central il- a good choice for lectotype, since it is ci- lustration in folio 9 of Ordo 4, Classis ted explicitly in Ker Gawler’s protologue, Aestiva, of Hortus Eystettensis (BESLER, and allows maintaining the traditional use 1613) corresponds to the latter polyno- of the name, it being favoured here as a mial and is a good match for Xiphion variety in X. vulgare. latifolium. It is suitable for lectotype. All those synonyms, including Miller’s bi- 12. Iris filifolia Boiss., Voy. Bot. Espagne nomial, were referred to in the protologue 2: 602, t. 170 (1842) of Iris xiphioides Erhr., this latter name [Xiphion filifolium (Boiss.) Klatt in being therefore illegitimate. Linnaea 34: 571 (1866)] It is worth mention that the collection Ind. loc.: “In rupestribus calcareis arenosis re- Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.28 (LINN; image gionis montanae, Sierra de Mijas suprà available at http://www.linnean-online. Alhaurin loco Cruz de Mendoza dicto, org/826/), which is labelled “Iris sp.” and Sierra Bermeja in latere meridionali. Alt. annotated “similis spuriae, flos albus”, 3000’-4000’. Fl. Maio” really corresponds to X. latifolium. Lectotypus [designated by BURDET & al. (1982: 383)]: G-BOISS 00164601 14. Iris boissieri Henriq. in Bol. Soc.

This species was described from Sie- Brot. 3: 183 (1885) [Xiphion boissieri (Henriq.) Rodion., Rod rra de Mijas and Sierra Bermeja (Mála- Iris: 201 (1961)] ga), in southern Spain. The type material Ind. loc.: “Estrada romana (J.H.); Barrozão is conserved in Boissier’s herbarium at G. (Moll.); Ponte feia (M. Fer.). Junho e BURDET & al. (1982) selected collecti- julho. Port. – Gerez (600 m a 900 m). ons from Mijas for lectotype designation, Area geogr. – Portugal” it being a good choice. They are mounted Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herbario do on two sheets that are labelled ‘Type’ and Jardim Bot. da Universidade de Coimbra. are numbered together G 00164601. The Serra do Gerez: Barrozão, alt. 950 m, one bearing a barcode label includes two junho 1884, A. Moller (COI s/n). flowering plants, of which that on the right side was chosen as lectotype. Three specimens from COI (Universi- dade de Coimbra) were explicitly cited in 13. Xiphion latifolium Mill., Gard. Dict. the protologue of this name. Those col- ed. 8: nº 3 (1768) lected by J. Henriques and A. Moller ha- [ (Mill.) Voss, Vilm. Blumen- ve been studied and both are suitable for gärtn. ed. 3, 1: 982 (1895)] typification. The third one appears to be Ind. loc.: Not explicitly mentioned. not extant in Coimbra.

57 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises

Fig. 4. Lectotype of Iris boissieri Henriq. (© Herbarium COI, Universidade de Coimbra).

The sheet from Barrozão (Serra do that are a perfect match with the protolo- Gerez), which was harvested in June of gue and show all diagnostic features of 1884 by Moller, at about 950 m altitude, this remarkable species. It is endemic to is selected here as the lectotype of this north-western Iberian Peninsula and is name (Fig. 4). It includes two individuals currently threatened with extinction.

58 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO

15. Iris serotina Willk. in Willk. & Lan- (UPS) bears two flowered fragments and ge, Prodr. Fl. Hispan. 1: 141 (1861) some unconnected leaves, as well as a ve- [Xiphion serotinum (Willk.) Soják in getative shoot. On the other, L 0052830 Čas. Nár. Muz. Praze, Rada Přír. 150(3-4): (Fig. 5) from A. van Royen’s herbarium 140 (1982) ≡ X. vulgare var. serotinum bears two well preserved flowering stems (Willk.) Baker in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 16: fitting the traditional concept of the spe- ≡ 122 (1877) I. variabilis subsp. serotina cies, though the rootstock is lacking. This (Willk.) K. Richt., Pl. Eur. 1: 258 (1890)] latter sheet is selected here as lectotype. Ind. loc.: “In graminosis apricis in latere bor. cacuminis calc. Cerro Javalcon [sic] pr. Jaen ad alt. c. 3500’” 17. Iris L., Sp. Pl.: 40 (1753) Lectotypus (hic designatus): COI 00048439 [Gynandriris sisyrinchium (L.) Parl., Nuov. Gen. Sp. Monocot.: 52 (1854) ≡ In Willkomm’s herbarium at COI, a (L.) Ker Gawl. in sheet is found (nº 00048439; image avail- Ann. Bot. (König & Sims) 1: 241 (1804)] Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Hispania, Lusitania” able at www.uc.pt/en/herbario_digi tal / Lectotype [designated by P. Goldblatt in Bot. willkomm_herbarium / herb_on_line) that Not. 133: 254-255 (1980)]: [icon in] Clus., includes original material of this species, Rar. Pl. Hist. 1: 216 (1601), “Sisyrinchium and fits the protologue. It was collected in majus” “Sierra de Jaén, in graminosis lateris occidentalis cacuminis Cerro Jabalcón, The lectotype designated by GOLD- 20-VIII-45” [sic] by Willkomm himself. BLATT (1980) depicts a plant with lea- Although it was first supposed to be Iris ves shorter than the scape, which occur- filifolia Boiss. with doubt, the identifica- red in the surroundings of Lisbon and Cá- tion was later corrected to “Iris xiphium diz. Although that morphological feature L. var. ?”, and finally the sentence “Spe- is unusual in this species and perhaps de- cies nova ! / Iris serotina mihi” was an- signation of Clusius’s “Sisyrinchium mi- notated on the label. It is hence de- nus” would have been better, the chosen signated as the obligate lectotype of the lectotype fits well into the overall traditi- name. onal concept of the Linnaean species, and With regard to the type locality, altho- there is no doubt about the application of ugh WILLKOMM (1861) cited ‘Cerro Ja- the name. valcón’, his collection most probably ca- me from Cerro Javalcruz, a site located Acknowledgements south of Jaén city. I am grateful to Robert Vogt (B), Hans Genus Hermodactylus Mill. Vilhelm Hansen and Oleg Seber (C), Christine Bartram (CGE), Fátima Sales (COI), Agathe 16. L., Sp. Pl.: 40 (1753) Gautschi and Laurent Gautier (G), Paul Wil- [Hermodactylus tuberosus (L.) Mill., kin and Lesley Walsingham (K), Gerard Gard. Dict. ed. 8 [sine num.] (1768), “tu- Thijsse (L), and Mats Hjertson (UPS), for kin- berosa”] dly sending information and/or digital images Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Arabia & Oriente” of type material conserved at the cited her- Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herb. A. van baria. Félix Muñoz Garmendia (Real Jardín Royen No. 904.138-304 (L 0052830) Botánico de Madrid, CSIC) is also thanked for interesting discussion on typification of some Among the elements cited in the pro- taxa. This research was partly supported by Flora iberica project, parts VIII & IX tologue, two herbarium sheets are ava- (CGL2008-02982-C03 and CGL2011-28613- ilable for typification (cf. JARVIS, 2007). C03-01), from the Spanish Government. On the one hand, Herb. Burser III: 3

59 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises

Fig. 5. Lectotype of Iris tuberosa L. (© Herbarium L, Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden University).

60 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO

REFERENCES KLATT, F.W. (1864) Revisio Iridearum. Lin- naea 32: 689-784. KLATT, F.W. (1866) Revisio Iridearum (con- BAKER, J.G. (1877) Systema Iridacearum. J. clusio). Linnaea 34: 537-739. Linn. Soc., Bot. 16: 61-180. LABANI, R.M. & A. EL-GADI (1980) Flora BAKER, J.G. (1892) Handbook of the . of Libya 81 (Iridaceae). Al Faateh Univer- G. Bell & sons. London. sity. Tripoli. BAUHIN, C. (1623) Pinax theatri botanici. LANGE, J.M.C. (1860) Pugillus plantarum Typ. Ludovici Regis. Basileae. imprimis Hispanicarum (pars I). Vidensk. BAUHIN, C. (1658) Theatri botanici. König. Meddel. Naturhist. Foren. Kjøbenhavn ser. Basileae. 2, 1: 1-82 (1860) BAUHIN, J. & J.H. CHERLER (1651) His- LANGE, J.M.C. (1866) Descriptio iconibus toria plantarum universalis, 2. Typ. Cal- illustrata plantarum novarum vel minus doriana. Edobruni. cognitarum, fasc. 3. Klein. Hauniae. BESLER, B. (1640) Hortus Eystettensis, 2. LAWRENCE, G.H.M. (1953) A reclassifica- Nürnberg. tion of the genus Iris. Gentes Herb. 8(4): BURDET, H.M., A. CHARPIN & F. JAC- 346-371. QUEMOUD (1982) Types nomenclaturaux LINNAEUS, C. (1753) Species plantarum. des taxa ibériques décrits par Boissier ou Salvii. Holmiae. Reuter. II. Iridacées à Potamogetonacées. LINNAEUS, C. (1759) Systema Naturae, ed. Candollea 37: 381-395. 10. Salvii. Holmiae. CLUSIUS, C. (1601) Rariorum Plantarum LINNAEUS, C. (1762) Species plantarum, ed. Historia. Ch. Plantini. Antuerpiae. 2. Salvii. Holmiae. CRESPO, M.B. (2011) Chamaeiris, an earlier MATHEW, B. (1989) The Iris, ed. 2. London. name for Xyridion (, Iridaceae). MAVRODIEV, E.V. (2010) Is there an alter- Flora Montiber. 49: 60-71. native treatment of including genus Belam- DODOENS, R. (1583) Stirpium Historiae canda to the genus Iris (Iridaceae)? In: Pemptades Sex sive libri XXX. Ch. Plantini. SHMAKOV, A.I. (ed.), Problems of Botany Antuerpiae. of South and (Proceed- DYKES, W.R. (1910) Notes on irises. Certain ings of the 9th International Scientific and white-flowered species. Gard. Chron. ser. 3, Practical Conference, October 2010): 148- 48: 209-210. 155. Barnaul. DYKES, W.R. (1912) The genus Iris. Cam- McNEILL, J., F.R. BARRIE, H.M. BURDET, bridge University Press. Cambridge. V. DEMOULIN, D.L. HAWKSWORTH, EHRHART, J.F. (1792) Beiträge zur Natur- K. MARHOLD, D.H. NICOLSON, J. PRA- kunde, 7. Hannover & Osnabrück. DO, P.C. SILVA, J.E. SKOG, J. H. WIER- GOLDBLATT, P. (1980) Systematics of Gy- SEMA & N.J. TURLAND (eds.) (2006) In- nandriris (Iridaceae), a Mediterranean- ternational Code of Botanical Nomencla- southern African disjunct. Bot. Not. 133: ture (Vienna Code). Adopted by the Seven- 239-260. teenth International Botanical Congress IPNI (2012) The International Plant Names Vienna, Austria, July 2005. [Regnum Veg. Index. Published on the Internet < 146]. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, www.ipni.org>. Royal Botanic Gardens, Germany. Kew. [accessed 10-July-2012]. MILLER, P. (1757) Figures of the most beau- JARVIS, C.E. (2007) Order out of chaos: Lin- tiful, useful, and uncommon plants descri- naean plant names and their types. The Lin- bed in the Gardeners Dictionary, exhibited nean Society of London & the Natural His- on three hundred copper plates, vol. 2. Riv- tory Museum. ington & al. London. JARVIS, C.E., F.R. BARRIE, D.M. ALLAN MILLER, P. (1768) The Gardeners’ Dictiona- & J.L. REVEAL (1993) A list of Linnaean ry, ed. 8. Rivington & al. London. generic names and their types. Regnum Veg. PARLATORE, F. (1860) Flora italiana, 3(2). 127: 1-100. Le Monnier. Firenze. KER GAWLER, J.B. (1803) Iris lusitanica. RAY, J. (1688) Historia plantarum generalis, Bot. Mag. 18, tab. 679. 2. M. Clark. London.

61 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X Nomenclatural types of Iberian irises

RODIONENKO, G.I. (1961) Rod Iris L. WILSON, C. (2011) Subgeneric classification Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Mos- in Iris re-examined using chloroplast se- cow [translated into English as ‘The genus quence data. Taxon 60(1): 27-35. Iris L.’ by British Iris Society, London. 1987]. (Recibido el 7-VIII-2012) RODIONENKO, G.I. (2005) On the inde- pendence of the genus Xyridion (Iridaceae). Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 90(1): 55-59. RODIONENKO, G.I. (2007) On the inde- pendence of the genus Limniris (Iridaceae). Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 92(4): 547-554. RODIONENKO, G.I. (2009) A new system of the genus Iris (Iridaceae). Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 94(3): 423-435. TOURNEFORT, J.P. (1719) Institutiones rei herbariae, ed. 3, 1. Typ. Regia. Paris. VALENTINE, D.H. (1980) Iridaceae. In: TU- TIN, T.G. & al. (eds.), Flora europaea 5: 86-102. Cambridge University Press. Cam- bridge.

62 Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X