Linum tenue var. xauense Pau

Nualart, Neus, Soriano, Ignasi, Prieto, David Pérez & Ibáñez, Neus, 2021, Catalogue and typification of the Moroccan taxa published by Carlos Pau, Phytotaxa 519 (1), pp. 1-94 : 52-53

Linum tenue var. xauense Pau in Vidal, Bol. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 21: 275 (1921)

= Linum tenue Desf.

Ind. loc.:—“Xauen”

Type:—not traced.

1,2,3 Linum villarianum Pau in Mem. Real Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 12: 298 (1924a)

Ind. loc.:—“Al pie de los grandes peñascos de Gorgues y a unos 1.000 metros de altura. 8 de mayo”

Lectotype (designated here):—Beni Hosmar, Los Gorgues, 1000 m, 8 May 1921, Pau s.n. (lectotype MA 72781 ! [http://colecciones.rjb.csic.es/#cardAdv.php?CatalogNumber=MA-01-00072781]; isolectotypes BC 11328 !, MA 72783 !)

Notes:— The BC specimen was labelled as type by Montserrat in 2006. The MA specimens are very similar, and the one chosen as lectotype has an indication of “n. sp.” on the label .

1,2,3 Lithospermum diffusum var. suavis Pau & Font Quer in Font Quer, Iter Marocc. 1928 nº 325 (1929), in sched.

= Lithodora maroccana I.M.Johnst.

Ind. loc.:—“Hab. supra Xauen, in saxosis calc. montis Kalaa, 1000 m. alt.; 13 majii”

Lectotype (designated here):—Supra Xauen, in saxosis calc. montis Kalaa, 1000 m, 13 May 1928, Font Quer 325-1928 (lectotype BC 42667 ! [https://www.ibb.csic.es/herbari/ JPEG / BC42667 .jpg]; isolectotypes BCN 71178 [photo!], GDA 789 [photo!], MA 96550 !)

Notes:— Carrasco (1975) records this taxon as Lithospermum fruticosum var. suave Pau & Font Quer. The GDA specimen was labelled as syntype by Vizoso 2013. The BC and GDA specimens were identified as Lithodora maroccana by Valdés in 1995 and Pastor 2005, respectively.

1 Lonicera maroccana Pau & Vidal in Vidal, Asoc. Esp. Progr. Ci. Congr. Cádiz 6: 147 (1928), nom. nud.

=?

Note:—According to Vidal (1928) the specimens collected were damaged, so no description was added.

1,3 Lonicera periclymenum var. longipetiolata Pau in Mem. Real Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 12: 334 (1924a)

=§ Lonicera periclymenum subsp. hispanica (Boiss. & Reut.) Nyman

Ind. loc.:—“Yebel Quebir … En las cercanías de Tánger ”

Holotype:— Tanger, April 1921, Pau s.n. ( MA 118948 ! [http://colecciones.rjb.csic.es/#cardAdv. php?CatalogNumber=MA-01-00118948])

Notes:— Ruiz & Devesa (2007) consider this name illegitimate due to the fact that in the protologue Pau (1924a) includes as synonym L. periclymenum var. hispanica (Boiss. & Reut.) Ball , a combination published by Ball (1897: 482). However, Pau provides below a diagnosis of his new variety, just by comparison with the var. hispanica : it differs by not narrow, long-cuneate leaves, with dark green laminas and long petioles. Therefore, as in other novelties published in 1924, the symbol “=” refers to the interpretation of Ball (1897) of a taxon recorded in his Spicilegium Florae Maroccanae [= var. hispanica sensu Ball ], rather than to a synonym. The holotype is identified as L. periclymenum subsp. hispanica by Devesa & Ruiz in 2002. According to the current concept of this species, the Moroccan plants correspond to subsp. hispanica ( Tahiri & Fennane 2014) , although in APD (2020) the variety is linked to the species.

1,2,3 Lotus angustissimus var. brachycarpus Pau in Font Quer, Iter Marocc. 1930 nº 350 (1932), in sched., nom. illeg.

= Lotus subbiflorus Lag.

Ind. loc.:—“Hab. in arenosis subhumidis c. Malalien; 27 junii”

Lectotype (designated here):—In arenosis subhumidis c. Malalien, 27 June 1930, Font Quer 350-1930 (lectotype MA 66187! [http://colecciones.rjb.csic.es/#cardAdv.php?CatalogNumber=MA-01-00066187]; isolectotypes BCN 74429 [photo!], BM 000839732 [photo!], GDA 34052 [photo!], K *, MPU 003087 [photo!]*) Notes:—This name should be considered illegitimate according to Art. 53.4 ( Turland et al. 2018), since a previously published homonym exists: L. angustissimus var. brachycarpus Boiss. ex Brand (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 25: 251 1898), as Mathez already indicated on a label of the MPU specimen in 1982. The GDA specimen was labelled as syntype by Vizoso in 2013. Kramina (2006) and El Oualidi et al. (2012) cited K and MPU specimens as isotypes. Valdés (2002c) synonymized this variety under L. palustris Willd. , but according to Kramina (2006) it should be L. subbiflorus . Their criterion is different: according to Valdés (2002c) L. palustris and L. subbiflorus differ by their habit, while Kramina (2006) emphasizes the shape of the keel. The plants of the original material have the keeled beaks straight at the tip, a diagnostic character of L. subbiflorus .