14 Pages

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


Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more


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.



Published by
Published 01 January 2012
Reads 17
Language English
Document size 3 MB

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


CIBIO, Instituto de la Biodiversidad. Universidad de Alicante.
P.O. Box 99. E-03080 Alicante. E-mail: crespo@ua.es

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.
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).
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 as
The genus Chamaeiris Medik. the type of Lange’s species. That collec-
tion is probably the only extant original
5. Iris graminea L., Sp. Pl.: 39 (1753) material, and it matches perfectly the pro-
[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:
19, Iris 10 (BM 000557648) However, it is not possible to ascer-
tain if the cited collection was the only
Several materials exist among the element on which the description was ba-
Linnaean collections that are relevant for sed. Lange’s plants flowered at C several
typification of this name (cf. JARVIS, times prior to publication of the new spe-
2007). The sheet Herb. Linnaeus no. 17.9 cies, and maintained their morphological
(S; image available at linnaeus.nrm. features unchanged (cf. LANGE, 1860,
se/botany/fbo/i/iris/irisgra.html.en) inclu-1866). Any of those materials could have
des two fragments fitting the original des-been used for that purpose.
cription and the current concept of this Therefore, the sheet at C (Fig. 2) is se-
species, but they are post-1753 accessions lected as the obligate lectotype of I. albi-
from Alstroemer, and are ineligible as cans.
The sheet Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.15 4. Iris lutescens Lam., Encycl. 3(1): 297
(LINN; image available at www. linnean-(1789)
online.org/813/), which corresponds to Ind. loc.: “Cette Iris croît en France, en Alle-
magne, &c. aux lieux montagneux & pier- num. 4 of Amman’s collection, bears
Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO
number ‘13’ of Species plantarum, but it Finally, the sheet BM 000557648 in-
is indeed Iris ruthenica 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).
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
731): a fruiting specimen on the upper Mauritanie. Alger, dans les prairies. N.
part of the cited page, and a flowering Bové. Mai 1837 (CGE 12660!), as “Iris
one on the lower. spuria L.” [holotype missing at B]
With regard to the combination in
Chamaeiris, Medikus referred it as “Ch. KLATT (1866) explicitly cited in the
foetida”, though he cited the basyonym as protologue that the holotype was housed
“I. foetida L.” and linked it to the same at B. Now it seems to be missing at Ber-
Linnaean synonym: ‘Spatha foetida Do-lin (VOGT, pers. comm.), though fortu-
don. p. 245’ (DODONAEUS, 1583). As nately several isotypes of Bové’s collec-
discussed by CRESPO (2011), it should tion are found in European herbaria (e.g.
be treated as an orthographic error with-C, CGE, G, K, P). Among them, we des-
out nomenclatural consequences, and the ignate the sheet CGE 12660 (Cambridge
combination should undoubtedly be at-University) as lectotype (ICBN, art. 9.9),
tributed to Medikus. since it is well conserved and bears a
completely developed flower (Fig. 3).
Genus Juno Tratt.
7. Iris foetidissima 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-
hin & Cherler, Hist. Pl. 2: 703 (1651), protologue (LINNAEUS, 1753), four are
“Iris bulbosa latifolia flore caeruleo & relevant for typification of this name.
candido” First, the sheet Herb. Clifford 19, Iris 10
(BM 000557648) corresponds indeed to I.
No herbarium material of this taxon is graminea as said before, and was proba-
currently found among Miller’s collec-bly included by error, it being not appro-
tions at OXF, in Oxford University (S.K. priate as the type. Secondly, the sheet
MARNER, pers. comm.). In the protolo-Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.8 (LINN; image
gue, however, reference is explicitly ma-available at www.linnean-online. org/
de to “Iris bulbosa latifolia, flore caeru-806/) includes a single flower of the true
leo J.B. 2 703”, which refers to BAUHIN I. foetidissima, and it is annotated “HU/8/
& CHERLER (1651: 703). These authors Iris foetidissima”. Most probably,
described the species under the name DYKES (1912: 50) indirectly referred to
“Iris bulbosa latifolia, flore caeruleo & that collection, though it cannot be ac-
candido”, including a good drawing that cepted as a valid typification according to
fits well the current concept of that name, the ICBN (McNeill et al., 2006).
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. Iris pseudacorus L., Sp. Pl.: 38 (1753)
[Limniris pseudacorus (L.) Fuss, Fl. sents Miller’s taxon too. Therefore, the
Transsilv.: 636 (1866) ≡ Xiphion pseuda-cited drawing in Bauhin & Cherler, which
corus (L.) Schrank, Fl. Monac. 1, tab. 9 depicts a plant occurring in Portugal and
(1811) ≡ Limnirion pseudacorus (L.) Opiz, southern Spain, is here selected as the
Seznam: 59 (1852), nom. inval. ≡ Xyridi-lectotype of the name.

Fig. 3. Lectotype of Iris reichenbachiana Klatt (© Herbarium CGE, Cambridge University).
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.]
on that taxon). Ind. loc.: “Habitat in Europa ad ripas paludum
Nonetheless, when MILLER (1768) fossarum”
synonymised “Iris bulbosa, flore caeru-Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herb. Linnaeus
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 inflorescence, which maintain the traditional use of the Lin-
matches the current concept of the spe- naean name.
cies. Finally, the sheet Herb. Linnaeus no.
11. Iris lusitanica Ker Gawl. in Bot. Mag. 61.7 (LINN; image available at
www.linnean-online.org/805/) bears a 18, tab. 679 (1803)
[Xiphion vulgare var. lusitanicum (Ker more complete and representative frag-
Gawl.) Baker in Gard. Chron. ser. 2, 5: ment, and is a good choice as lectotype.
559 (1876) ≡ X. sordidum Sol. ex Salisb.
in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 303 (1812) Genus Xiphion Tourn. ex Mill.
[“Xiphium”], nom. illeg., syn. subst. ≡ X.
lusitanicum (Ker Gawl.) Alef. in Bot. Zei-
10. Iris xiphium 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.
Bulb. 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 violet-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), variety cally bluish or lilac-blue). Nonetheless, as
Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X M.B. CRESPO
Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Besler, he mentioned, from the beginning of the
Hort. Eystett. 2 [Classis Aestiva], Ord. 4, XIX century the name Iris lusitanica was
fol. 9, fig. 1 (1613), “Iris bulbosa, An-applied by horticulturists to full yellow-
glica, flore coeruleo” flowered plants growing in the central-
western Iberian Peninsula (from the Por-
In the protologue, MILLER (1768) re-tuguese Estremadura to the Spanish Ex-
fers directly to ‘Xiphion latifolium, caule tremadura).
donatum, flore caeruleo. Tourn. Inst. R. Yellow-flowered plants from the sur-
H. 363’. This polynomial was published roundings of Lisbon had already been
by TOURNEFORT (1719) in connection illustrated by CLUSIUS (1601: 212) as
with “Iris bulbosa, latifolia, caule do-
“Iris bulbosa flavo flo. sive V” and had
nata, flore coeruleo C. B. Pin. 38. Iris also been described accurately under the
bulbosa, Anglica, flore coeruleo Eyst.” name “Iris bulbosa IIII, sive lutea” in the
Among all those elements, the central il-same work. Therefore, that illustration is
lustration in folio 9 of Ordo 4, Classis a good choice for lectotype, since it is ci-
Aestiva, of Hortus Eystettensis (BESLER, ted explicitly in Ker Gawler’s protologue,
1613) corresponds to the latter polyno-and allows maintaining the traditional use
mial and is a good match for Xiphion of the name, it being favoured here as a
latifolium. It is suitable for lectotype. All variety in X. vulgare.
those synonyms, including Miller’s bi-
nomial, were referred to in the protologue 12. Iris filifolia Boiss., Voy. Bot. Espagne
of Iris xiphioides Erhr., this latter name 2: 602, t. 170 (1842)
being therefore illegitimate. [Xiphion filifolium (Boiss.) Klatt in
It is worth mention that the collection Linnaea 34: 571 (1866)]
Herb. Linnaeus no. 61.28 (LINN; image Ind. loc.: “In rupestribus calcareis arenosis re-
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.

Brot. 3: 183 (1885) This species was described from Sie- [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”
Lectotypus (hic designatus): Herbario do it being a good choice. They are mounted
Jardim Bot. da Universidade de Coimbra. on two sheets that are labelled ‘Type’ and
Serra do Gerez: Barrozão, alt. 950 m, are numbered together G 00164601. The
junho 1884, A. Moller (COI s/n). one bearing a barcode label includes two
flowering plants, of which that on the
Three specimens from COI (Universi-right side was chosen as lectotype.
dade de Coimbra) were explicitly cited in
the protologue of this name. Those col-13. Xiphion latifolium Mill., Gard. Dict.
lected by J. Henriques and A. Moller ha-ed. 8: nº 3 (1768)
ve been studied and both are suitable for [Iris latifolia (Mill.) Voss, Vilm. Blumen-
typification. The third one appears to be gärtn. ed. 3, 1: 982 (1895)]
not extant in Coimbra. Ind. loc.: Not explicitly mentioned.
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.
Flora Montiberica 53: 49-62 (18-XII-2012). ISSN: 1988-799X