Nomenclatural types of iberian Irises (Iris and related genera, Iridaceae) [Tipos nomenclaturales de lirios ibéricos (Iris y géneros relacionados, Iridaceaae)]

Jose Luis

Description

SUMMARY: 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.
RESUMEN: Se presentan los tipos nomenclaturales de 17 táxones pertenecientes a Iris y otros seis géneros relacionados, que se aceptan en el tratamiento de las Iridaceae para Flora iberica. De ellos, se designan por primera vez 13 lectótipos y un neótipo, y se comentan brevemente tres tipificaciones previas.

Sujets

• Iris
• Chamaeiris
• Juno
• Limniris
• Xiphion
• Hermodactylus
• Gynandriris
• Nomenclature
• Typification
• Iberian Peninsula
• Nomenclatura
• Península Ibérica
• España
• Spain

Informations

• Publié par: erevistas
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2012
• Nombre de lectures: 26
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 3 Mo

Extrait

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: [e-mail]



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.





others), whereas others were accepted as INTRODUCTION
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”
(Iris sect. Iris) related to I. germanica L., Lectotypus [designated by B. MATHEW in
as deduced from the diagnosis and the JARVIS & al. (1993: 57)]: Herb. Clifford:
rest of pre-Linnaean polynomials he ad-18, Iris 2 (BM 000557643)
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-
This fact would explain that I. floren-la.] Sp. Pl. ed. 2: 55 (1762)”
tina had sometimes been regarded to in-Neotypus (hic designatus): K 000524326
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
reux: on la cultive au Jardin du Roi, où 3. Iris albicans Lange in Vidensk. Med-
elle fleurit au moins de Mai” del. Naturhist. Foren. Kjøbenhavn ser.
Lectotypus (hic designatus): “Iris pumila 2, 1: 76 (1860)
lutea - tube de la cor. couvert et de la lon-[I. florentina var. albicans (Lange) Baker
geur de la spathe” (P-LAM 00382910).
in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 16: 146 (1877) ≡ I.
florentina subsp. albicans (Lange) K.
A sheet exists in Lamarck’s herbari-Richt., Pl. Eur. 1: 255 (1890) ≡ I. germa-
um at P (image available at www. la-nica subsp. albicans (Lange) O. Bolòs &
marck.cnrs.fr/herbier.php; liasse no. 80, Vigo, Fl. Països Catalans 4: 158 (2001)]
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
polynomial ‘Iris pumila lutea’ and a short Rhizomes of this species were collec-
sentence on features of spathes and co-ted near Almería (SE of Spain) on De-
rolla tube, which match perfectly the pro-cember 1851 (cf. LANGE, 1866: 19, tab.
tologue (cf. LAMARCK, 1789). This ele-XXXIII), and they were grown later in
ment is selected as the obligate lectotype the Botanical Garden of Copenhagen.
of the species, which otherwise is not na-Flowers were obtained for the first time
tive to Germany, contrarily to the indica-in 1858, and plants still bloomed in follo-
tion in the protologue. wing years, as said in the protologue.
A sheet exists at C that is regarded