Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X NOMENCLATURAL TYPES OF IBERIAN IRISES (IRIS AND RELATED GENERA, IRIDACEAE) 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 species 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- genus. 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-flower’ clade is being undertaken (not included in Moraea 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 plant 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. Iris florentina 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 flowers, 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 plants 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. Iris albicans 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): “Iris pumila [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 leaves, 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 Rhizomes of this species were collec- polynomial ‘Iris pumila lutea’ and a short sentence on features of spathes and co- ted near Almería (SE of Spain) 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 Botanical Garden 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. Iris graminea 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 Austria 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.