Chamaeris, an earlier name for Xyridion (Iridoideae, Iridaceae) [Chamaeris, nombre anterior para Xyridion (Iridoideae, Iridaceae)]

Ed. Internet, Gonzalo Mateo, Ed. José Luis Benito

Description

ABSTRACT: The name Chamaeiris Medik. is revived for taxa belonging to Iris subg. Xyridion (Tausch) Spach, subg. Gramniris Spach and subg. Spathula Spach. It has priority over Xyridion (Tausch) Fourr., a genus name that has been recently reinstated in a sense that matches Medikus’s original concept of Chamaeiris. A new arrangement is presented for this genus, which comprises 22 species, 3 subspecies and 2 varieties, in two sections and three series. 28 new combinations are stated, and the main synonymy is also included for all accepted taxa.
RESUMEN: Se recupera el género Chamaeiris Medik. para los táxones pertenecientes a Iris subg. Xyridion (Tausch) Spach, subg. Gramniris Spach y subg. Spathula Spach. Dicho nombre genérico es prioritario frente a Xyridion (Tausch) Fourr., que ha sido utilizado recientemente en un sentido que coincide plenamente con la circunscripción que inicialmente dio Medikus a Chamaeiris. Se presenta una nueva ordenación taxonómica para el género, con 22 especies, 3 subespecies y 2 variedades, en dos secciones y tres series. Se realizan 28 combinaciones nuevas y para todos los táxones aceptados se presentan sus principales sinónimos.

Sujets

• Chamaeiris
• Xyridion
• Nomenclature
• Taxonomy
• Spathula
• Iris
• Nomenclatura
• Taxonomía
• Iridaceae

Informations

• Publié par: erevistas
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2011
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

Flora Montiberica 49: 60-71 (X-2011). ISSN 1988-799X


CHAMAEIRIS, AN EARLIER NAME FOR XYRIDION
(IRIDOIDEAE, IRIDACEAE)


Manuel B. CRESPO VILLALBA
CIBIO, Instituto de la Biodiversidad. Universidad de Alicante. Apartado 99.
E-03080 Alicante. [e-mail]



SUMMARY: The name Chamaeiris Medik. is revived for taxa belonging to Iris
subg. Xyridion (Tausch) Spach, subg. Gramniris Spach and subg. Spathula Spach. It
has priority over Xyridion (Tausch) Fourr., a genus name that has been recently rein-
stated in a sense that matches Medikus’s original concept of Chamaeiris. A new ar-
rangement is presented for this genus, which comprises 22 species, 3 subspecies and 2
varieties, in two sections and three series. 28 new combinations are stated, and the
main synonymy is also included for all accepted taxa. Key words: Chamaeiris, Xyrid-
ion, Spathula, Iris, nomenclature, taxonomy.

RESUMEN: Se recupera el género Chamaeiris Medik. para los táxones pertene-
cientes a Iris subg. Xyridion (Tausch) Spach, subg. Gramniris Spach y subg. Spathula
Spach. Dicho nombre genérico es prioritario frente a Xyridion (Tausch) Fourr., que ha
sido utilizado recientemente en un sentido que coincide plenamente con la circunscrip-
ción que inicialmente dio Medikus a Chamaeiris. Se presenta una nueva ordenación
taxonómica para el género, con 22 especies, 3 subespecies y 2 variedades, en dos sec-
ciones y tres series. Se realizan 28 combinaciones nuevas y para todos los táxones
aceptados se presentan sus principales sinónimos. Palabras clave: Chamaeiris, Xyri-
dion, Spathula, Iris, nomenclatura, taxonomía.





among the widely accepted groups in the INTRODUCTION
‘Iris flower clade’ (Iris sensu lato), which
have been treated at different taxonomic In the account of Iridaceae for Flora
ranks in the last two centuries. iberica, the Iberian species of Iris (sensu
In the present contribution segregation lato) will be arranged in seven genera:
of Chamaeiris Medik. is supported, a na-Iris L., Juno Tratt., Hermodactylus Mill.,
me having priority against Xyridion (Tau-Limniris (Tausch) Fourr., Xiphion
sch) Fourr., recently revived at the genus Chamaeiris Medik., and Gynandriris
rank by RODIONENKO (2005). Parl. (not included in Moraea Mill.). This
treatment is based on the existence of im-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION portant morphological differences among
those aggregates, which allow recognition
Chamaeiris was described by MEDI-of diagnostic syndromes of morphologi-
KUS (1790) to segregate several iris spe-cal traits for each genus. A recent mole-
cies sharing peculiar flower and fruit fea-cular work of WILSON (2011) brings
tures. He included in the new genus I. new light to phylogenetic relationships
60 M.B. CRESPO
graminea L., I. spuria L. and I. foetidissi- 1877, 1892) raised to subgenus under the
ma L. (erroneously worded as ‘foetida’), illegitimate name I. subg. Apogon Baker.
and two additional names, Ch. angustifo- This latter name was treated as a subsec-
lia and Ch. desertorum, both without any tion by BENTHAM & HOOKER (1883),
description or reference to a previous one. thus validating I. subsect. Apogon Benth.
The genus was characterised by produc- & Hook. f. Similarly, DYKES (1913) ac-
ing flowers apparently lacking a perianth cepted I. sect. Apogon which he divided
tube and with 6-ribbed fruits that usually into 15 unformal groups, those named
ended in a sharp point. ‘The scarlet-seeded iris’ and ‘The Spuria
That genus name was neglected by la- group’ being devoted to species of Cha-
ter authors, who rearranged this group of maeiris. That classification was adapted
irises in different ways. SPACH (1846) by DIELS (1930), who transformed Dy-
included species of Chamaeiris in three kes’s groups in 15 subsections, both abo-
of the subgenera he recognised in Iris, ve groups resulting in I. subsect. Foetidis-
mostly based on preexisting sections of simae and I. subsect. Spuriae respecti-
TAUSCH (1823): I. subg. Xyridion (Ta- vely. This latter arrangement was follo-
usch) Spach for I. spuria plus seven re- wed basically by LAWRENCE (1953),
lated taxa, I. subg. Gramniris Spach for I. though he revised the internal relation-
graminea, and I. subg. Spathula (Tausch) ships of the infrageneric taxa and in-
Spach for I. foetidissima. Later, FOUR- cluded both subsections in I. sect. Spa-
REAU (1869) treated Xyridion and Spa- thula Tausch as I. subsect. Foetidissimae
thula as monotypic genera, respectively Diels and I. subsect. Apogon, the latter
including X. spurium (L.) Fourr. and S. with 15 series.
foetidissima (L.) Fourr. Furthermore, RODIONENKO (1961)
KLATT (1872) adopted the name Xy- in his first comprehensive revision of Iris
ridion, which he erroneously regarded as (sensu lato) compared critically all previ-
a new generic combination, in an expan- ous treatments and generated a new clas-
ded sense that implicitly included the ear- sification that recognised five genera:
lier Chamaeiris and Spathula, though no Iris, Iridodictyum Rodion., Hermodacty-
direct mention was made to any of those lus, Gynandriris, Juno and Xiphion. In
names. He also included X. flexuosum Iris he accepted six subgenera, among
(Murray) Klatt, X. laevigatum (Fisch.) which I. subg. Xyridion was recircumscri-
Klatt, X. pseudacorus (L.) Klatt, X. seto- bed to included two sections, Xyridion
sum (Pall. ex Link) Klatt, X. sibiricum and Spathula, corresponding to FOUR-
(L.) Klatt, X. tridentatum (Pursh) Klatt REAU’s (1869) homonymous genera.
and X. ventricosum (Pall.) Klatt. This The former section was divided into two
rendered Xyridion more heterogeneous series, Xyridion and Graminea (I. subg.
and virtually synonymous to the earlier Gramniris Spach).
Limniris (Tausch) Fourr. (FOURREAU, MATHEW (1989) published a revi-
1869), a name that also should have been sed, integrated system for Iris, with 6
used for the resulting aggregate. subgenera, 8 sections and 16 series. Spe-
Later authors have treated Chamaeiris cies of Chamaeiris were classified into I.
at different ranks in Iris, though usually sect. Limniris ser. Spuriae (Diels) G.H.M.
merged with other unbearded, rhizoma- Lawr. and ser. Foetidissimae (Diels) B.
tous groups of irises. BAKER (1876) gro- Mathew. The resulting classification has
uped Spach’s subgenera Xyridion, Spa- widely been followed to date by many
thula and Limniris as I. sect. Apogon Ba- horticultural associations and gardeners
ker, a name which he later (BAKER, around the world.
61
Flora Montiberica 49: 60-71 (X-2011). ISSN 1988-799X Chamaeiris, an earlier name for Xyridion


Fig. 1.- First part (lower portion, A) of the molecular tree (Maximum Likelihood) using cpDNA
(matK, trnK and ndhF) sequence data for 104 species of Iris s.l. (vide WILSON, 2011).

Recently, RODIONENKO (2005) re- tid sequence data of 104 species, which
vived Xyridion at the generic rank, tho- covers most of currently accepted supra-
ugh in a more restrictive sense than generic groups. Her excellent results (Fig.
KLATT (1872) did. Rodionenko treated 1 & 2) show that Iris is composed of ten
this genus in a way that fully matched well-supported clades that are accepted as
MEDIKUS’s (1790) original concept of subgenera, one of them being named I.
Chamaeiris, and presented an arrange- subg. Xyridion (Tausch) Spach (= Cha-
ment fitting the one he established for I. maeiris). This synthetic treatment is simi-
subg. Xyridion in 1961. This time howe- lar to that of MATHEW (1983), though
ver 19 species were included in two sec- with a deep recircumscription of most
tions, X. sect. Xyridion, X. sect. Spathula subgenera, to which small segregates
(Tausch) Rodion, and one additional se- (e.g. Pardanthopsis (Hance) L.W. Lenz,
ries, X. ser. Ludwigia (Doronkin) Rodion. Belamcanda Adans. and Hermodactylus)
(I. ser. Ludwigia Doronkin). usually regarded as autonomous genera
As said before, WILSON (2011) has are now reduced to synonymy (cf. WIL-
recently generated a comprehensive phy- SON, 2011). This leaves the wide diver-
logeny of Iris (sensu lato), based on plas- sity of Iris in its current broad sense, and
62
Flora Montiberica 49: 60-71 (X-2011). ISSN 1988-799X
M.B. CRESPO
Chamaeiris


Fig. 2.- Second part (upper portion, B) of the molecular tree (Maximum Likelihood) using
cpDNA (matK, trnK and ndhF) sequence data for 104 species of Iris s.l. (vide WILSON, 2011).
The position of Chamaeiris (= I. subg. Xyridion) is marked in red.
introduces a not disruptive taxonomic fra- sis and Belamcanda), both showing weak
mework that could be comfortable for morphological support in their new cir-
many botanists. cumscriptions.
Wilson’s treatment is technically cor- Conversely, many of Wilson’s newly
rect and revives successfully some mor- defined subgenera are indeed composed
phologically natural groups such as ‘Si- of a number of monophyletic aggregates
phonostylis’, ‘Nepalensis’, ‘Crossiris’ or that are morphologically consistent when
‘Lophiris’, which were widely neglected analysed individually. In the case of I