Iris spuria Linnaeus (1753: 39)

Altinordu, Fahim & Crespo, Manuel B., 2016, Nomenclatural type designation of four Linnaean names in Iris sensu lato (Iridaceae), Phytotaxa 268 (4), pp. 296-300 : 299

4. Iris spuria Linnaeus (1753: 39) [≡ Chamaeiris spuria (L.) Medikus (1790: 418)].

Type (lectotype, designated here):—Herb. Linnaeus, No. 61.17 ( LINN [photo!]). Epitype (designated here): Herb. Linnaeus, IDC no. 17.5 ex Herb. Montinii (S-LINN [photo!]).

The protologue of Iris spuria ( Linnaeus 1753: 39) consists of a diagnosis, “ IRIS corollis imberbibus, germinibus sexangularibus, caule tereti, foliis sublinearibus”, with citations from earlier works ( Linnaeus 1738: 19, 1748: 17, van Royen 1740: 16), and followed by one synonym, “ Iris pratensis angustifolia, folia foetido”, from Bauhin (1623: 32).

In the Linnaean herbarium at London there are two sheets ( LINN Nos. 61.17 and 61.18, images available at http:// linnean-online.org/815/ and http://linnean-online.org/816/) labelled Iris spuria . On the one hand, although LINN No. 61.18 shows flowers heavily damaged by insects, it appears to be identifiable as Iris lactea Pallas (1776: 713) [ Eremiris lactea (Pall.) Rodionenko (2006: 1708) ] on the basis of the outer perianth segments (falls) being non-pandurate and erect-patent, the inner tepals narrowed into a long canaliculated claw (haft), and the reddish fibrous remains of old leaves at the base of stems, which match with the “Ensata irises” (cf. Crespo et al. 2015). The material was collected by the German botanist and geographer Peter Simon Pallas (1741–1811), who explored eastern Russia and Siberia in 1769–1774 ( Stafleu & Cowan 1983), the time when the collection was likely made. Furthermore, the sheet LINN No. 61.18 lacks the original annotation of the Species plantarum number (in this case “12”) suggesting that the material is a post-1753 addition to the Linnaean collection and thus not original material for the name.

On the other hand, LINN No. 61.17 also has badly damaged flowers, but bears the Linnaean script “12 spuria ” and “ HU ” (Hortus Upsaliensis), explicitly referring to the number of the species account of Iris spuria in Linnaeus (1753: 39), and therefore it is acceptable as original material.

We have been unable to trace any further original material in any of the other Linnaean and Linnaean-linked herbaria and we select here the material in LINN (sheet no. 61.17) to serve as the nomenclatural type of Iris spuria . However, as it has suffered severe insect damage, some of the diagnostic floral characters are not recognisable and the selection of an epitype to fix the exact application of the name seems to be appropriate, as provided for in Art. 9.8 of the Melbourne Code ( McNeill et al. 2012). In the Linnaean herbarium at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm, one specimen from Montini’s herbarium (S-LINN 17.5, image available at http://linnaeus.nrm.se/botany/fbo/i/iris/irisspu1.html.en) is available that bears a plant collected in Germany, matching well the data in the protologue and the current concept of Iris spuria . It is here selected as epitype to support the designated lectotype of that name.