Iris iliensis P. Pol., 2018

Boltenkov, Eugeny V., 2018, Taxonomic notes on Iris ser. Lacteae (Iridaceae) with typifications of fifteen names and one new combination, Phytotaxa 383 (3), pp. 283-292 : 284-287

2. Iris lactea f. biglumis (Vahl) Kitagawa (1940: 114)

≡ I. biglumis Vahl (1805: 149) ≡ Joniris biglumis (Vahl) Klatt (1872: 502) ≡ Iris lactea var. biglumis (Vahl) Koidzumi (1930: 48) ≡ Eremiris biglumis (Vahl) Doronkin (2012: 458) .

Protologue citation:—[ RUSSIAN FEDERATION] “Sibiria”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon.] “ Iris an spuria?” in Pallas, Reise Russ. Reich. 3: t. C, f. 1 (1776).

= Iris triflora Balbis (1804: 6) ≡ Xiphion triflorum (Balb.) Alefeld (1863: 297) ≡ Joniris triflora (Balb.) Klatt (1872: 502) ≡ Iris sibirica subsp. triflora (Balb.) Nyman (1882: 702) . Protologue citation:—“… in horto colitur [Turin]”. Type (lectotype, designated here):— [icon] “ Iris triflora ” in Balbis, Misc. Bot.: t. 1 (1804). Other original material examined:—[Specimens from cultivated plants]. [Label handwritten by Balbis]: Iris triflora Balb. , [fl.], s.d., [Balbis] s.n. Herb. Persoon (L1472252, [digital image!]); Iris triflora Balb. culta, [fl.], s.d., [Balbis] s.n. Herb. Willdenow (B-W01006010 [digital image!]; K!).

= Iris caricifolia Pall. ex Link (1820: 72) . Protologue citation:—[ORIGIN NOT SPECIFIED]. Type (lectotype, designated here):— RUSSIAN FEDERATION. [Zabaykalsky Krai], without locality, [fl.], [May–June 1772], [Pallas] s.n. (B-W00999010 [digital image!]), isolectotype B-W00999020 [digital image!]). Other original material examined:— RUSSIAN FEDERATION. [Zabaykalsky Krai], Iris caricifolia , e Davuria valley, [fl.], s.d., [Pallas] s.n. Herb. Willdenow ( HAL0134114 [digital image!]); Iris caricifolia, Sibir. -orient., [fl.], s.d., [Pallas] s.n. ( BM000958418 !, left-hand side specimen) .

= Iris haematophylla Fisch. ex Link (1821: 60) . Protologue citation:—“Hab. in Sibiria?”. Type (neotype, designated here):— RUSSIAN FEDERATION. [Siberia], without locality, [fl.], s.d., s.coll. s.n. (B-W01000010 [digital image!]).

= Iris pallasii Fisch. ex Treviranus (1821 : [2]) ≡ Xiphion pallasii (Fisch. ex Trevir.) Alefeld (1863: 297) ≡ Joniris pallasii (Fisch. ex Trevir.) Klatt (1872: 502) ≡ Iris ensata [var.] β. pallasii (Fisch. ex Trevir.) Maxim. in Regel (1879: 210) ≡ Eremiris pallasii (Fisch. ex Trevir.) Doronkin (2012: 459) . Protologue citation:—“E Dahuria”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[Specimen from cultivated plants], Iris pallasii Fisch. E seminn. Fischerianis Wratislaviae colui 1820, [fl.], s.d., s.coll. s.n. Herb. Treviranus (B100715373 [digital image!]).

= Iris longispatha Fisch. ex Sims (1825 : t. 2528) ≡ Joniris longispatha (Fisch. ex Sims) Klatt (1872: 502) . Protologue citation:—“… Chelsea Botanic garden”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] in Sims, Bot. Mag. 52: t. 2528 (1825).

= Iris longifolia Royle ex D.Don in Royle (1839a: 372), nom. illeg. ≡ Joniris longifolia Klatt (1872: 502) . Protologue citation:—“From Cashmere seed in Saharunpore Botanic Garden”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Iris longifolia ” in Royle, Ill. Bot. Himal. Mts. 2: t. 91, f. 2 (1839b). Other original material examined:—[Specimens from cultivated plants]. Iris ( periscapas ) longifolia Rle. Cashmere seed in M[ussooree]. E[xperimental]. G[arden]., s.d., [Royle] s.n. Herb. Royle no. 170/9 (LIV.1952.121.11088.i & LIV.1952.121.11088.ii [digital images!])

= Iris fragrans Lindley (1840 : t. 1), nom. illeg. ≡ Joniris fragrans Klatt (1872: 502) . Protologue citation:—“… native of the north of India ”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] in Lindley, Edwards’s Bot. Reg. 26: t. 1 (1840).

= Iris doniana Spach (1846: 34) ≡ Xiphion donianum (Spach) Alefeld (1863: 297) ≡ Joniris doniana (Spach) Klatt (1872: 502) . Protologue citation:—“Sibérie”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Iris biglumis ” in Sweet, Brit. Fl. Gard. 2: t. 187 (1833). Other original material examined:—[Specimen from cultivated plants]. Iris doniana Spach , Iris biglumis Don in Sweet, Br. Fl. Gard. ser. 2, tab. 187 (non Vahl), H[ortus]. P[arisiensis]., ex sem. H. Petropol. pro I. biglumis , [fl.], 1845, s.coll. s.n. Herb. Spach (P02163173 [digital image!]).

= Iris pabularia Naudin ex Ermens in Grisard (1888: 698) ≡ I. ensata var. pabularia (Naudin ex Ermens) Wittmack (1898: 369) . Protologue citation:—“… Kashmyr”. Type (neotype, designated here):— INDIA. [Specimen from cultivated plants], Iris pabularia Ndn., Kashmyr, Hort. Paris , [fl.], 8 June 1885, s.coll. s.n. Herb. Delacour (P02150010 [digital images!]).

= I. ensata var. grandiflora Dykes (1912: 88) . Protologue citation:—“… from Gyantze in Thibet”. Type (neotype, designated here):— CNINA. [Tibet Autonomous Region], Tibet, Gyantse – Shigatse road, along irrigation chrubs, flowers pale mauve, 12500 ft., [fl.], 8 June [19]80, J.D.A. Stainton 8178 (E00711862!).

= Iris iliensis Poljakov (1950: 88) . Protologue citation:—“Kasachstania austro-orientalis, in pratis ad fl. Ili”. Type (lectotype, designated here):— KAZAKHSTAN. Almaty Region, Ile District, Maraldy natural landmark, dark-coloured alluvial alkali soils, [fr.], 7 October 1930, I. Pokrovskaya s.n. [originally in Russian] (AA [digital image!]).

Notes:—The protologue of I. biglumis ( Vahl 1805) consists of a complete original diagnosis and is followed by a synonym “ Iris an spuria L.?”, given by Pallas (1776), with some geographical information “ Habitat in Sibiria ”. This synonym is accompanied by a very informative uncoloured engraving from Pallas (1776), which is designated here as the lectotype of I. biglumis . Pallas noted that plants under the name “ I. an spuria L.?” occur in West and East Siberia (“… ad Ieniseam inque regionibus transbaikalensibus ”). Vahl (1805) suggested that I. biglumis could be a variety of I. lactea , which was subsequently confirmed by other authors (e.g., Grubov 1970, Rodionenko 2006, Boltenkov et al. 2016). In the present study, I. lactea f. biglumis is accepted. It is the most widely distributed form of I. lactea and is present in mixed populations along with the type form (with milky-white flower colour), from which it is distinguished by light-blue or pale-purple flower colour.

Iris triflora was described by Balbis (1804) based on cultivated plants from Turin Botanical Garden, Italy, where he served as the director between 1800 and 1814 ( Chialva et al. 2013). Only one herbarium specimen of I. triflora from the Balbis collection, showing his original label, has remained in TO (“ Iris triflora Balb. W. ex H. B. T., [fl.], 1809, [Balbis] s.n. ”), which is not original material for the name. The protologue is accompanied by an illustration, which is designated here as the lectotype of I. triflora . In addition, I found the above-mentioned specimens (L1472252, B-W01006010, and K!) with undated labels handwritten by Balbis, which, in my opinion, may be regarded as further original material for the name. These specimens apparently belong to Balbis’ exsiccatum.

Iris caricifolia was described by Link (1820) without indication of the collection locality. This work was dedicated to the Willdenow Herbarium at Berlin-Dahlem (B-W). The original material of I. caricifolia is represented in this herbarium by at least two specimens. One of them (B-W00999010) is indicated here as the lectotype. These specimens are a part of Pallas’ collection, which he gave to Willdenow ( Stafleu & Cowan 1983). Two specimens are stored in a folder having a label, on which Willdenow handwrote the polynomial name “ Iris caricifolia imberbis scapo bifloro, corolla sexfida, foliis linearibus scapo longioribus ” and the locality “ Habitat in Dauria ad … fluem ”. On the herbarium sheets, there are notes “ Ir. caricifolia ” in the upper right corner and “Pallas W[illdenow]” in the lower right corner of the sheet, which means the source of the material, the person from whom Willdenow allegedly received it ( Hiepko 1987). These handwritings were annotated by Leonhard von Schlechtendal, the Curator of the Willdenow Herbarium ( Schlechtendal 1832, Stafleu 1972). Also the two above-mentioned specimens (BM000958418 and HAL0134114) can be considered as original material for the name I. caricifolia . The former specimen has a label with a note “ Iris caricifolia ” handwritten by Pallas, that apparently explains the reason for which the name I. caricifolia was ascribed to Pallas by Link. The specimen HAL0134114 is evidently a duplicate, which came to Halle, Germany, from the Willdenow Herbarium.

Iris haematophylla was described by Link (1821) based on plants cultivated in Botanical Garden in Berlin, Germany. The protologue consists of a short diagnosis and is followed by a synonym “ I. biglumis ” from the list of the names of the plants grown at this botanical garden ( Willdenow 1814), with the geographical information indicated “ Hab. in Sibiria? ”. This plant was erroneously ascribed by Link to Fischer ( Fischer & Meyer 1835). Fischer indicated that I. haematophylla , described by Link, referred to I. biglumis and did not have any differences from it. Specimens under the name I. haematophylla are absent from Willdenow’s Herbarium, and, therefore, the specimen from it (B-W01000010) is designated here as a neotype. The herbarium sheet bears two handwritten notes annotated by Schlechtendal: “ Ir. biglumis ” and “[collection history]: Pallas [to] W[illdenow]”.

Iris pallasii was described by Treviranus (1821) based on plants cultivated in Botanical Garden in Breslau (Wrocław), Poland. These plants were raised from seeds, received under this name from Friedrich Ernst Ludwig von Fischer. The protologue provided some geographical information “E Dahuria”. Most of the old part of the Wrocław University herbarium (WRSL), including Treviranus’ collection, was destroyed during World War II (K. Świerkosz, pers. comm.). According to Index Herbariorum ( Thiers 2018) , Treviranus’ collections are deposited at B and BREM. The Treviranus’ specimen found by R. Vogt at B, which fully corresponds to the protologue of I. pallasii , is designated here as the lectotype.

Iris longispatha was described by Sims (1825) from plants cultivated in the Chelsea Physic Garden in London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. According to the protologue, the plants were obtained under the name of “ longispatha ” from Fischer, the director of the Imperial Botanic Garden in St. Petersburg, in 1824. In the protologue, an illustration of I. longispatha was published, which is the only extant original material that clearly represents the morphological characters and, thus, is designated here as the lectotype for this name. Eventually, Fischer himself in Fischer & Meyer (1835) considered his names I. pallasii and I. longispatha as synonyms of I. biglumis . In spite of this circumstance, Spach (1846) re-described I. biglumis under the name I. doniana , which he included, along with I. pallasii and I. triflora , within I. subg. Eremiris Spach (1846: 32) . The protologue of I. doniana consists of a complete diagnosis and is followed by two synonyms, accompanied by similar illustrations: “ I. biglumis D. Don , in Sweet, Brit. Flow. Gard. ser. 2, tab. 187” and “ I. longispatha Ker , in Bot. Mag. tab. 2528?”, with the geographical information “Sibérie”. The first illustration ( Sweet 1833), designated here as the lectotype of I. doniana , was made at the Chelsea Physic Garden; the plants were introduced by Anderson and obtained from seeds given by Fischer. In that work, Sweet did not find differences of the protologue and the original material of I. biglumis ( Pallas 1776, Vahl 1805) from the David Don’s description, cited by him. However, Spach differentiated the Don’s description as a new species, I. doniana , as is also indicated on the specimen from Spach’s collection (P02163173), which, in my opinion, can be considered as original material of this name.

The name I. longifolia is ascribed to John Royle and was described by Don ( Royle 1839a) from plants cultivated in the Saharunpore Botanic Garden, India, raised from seeds that had originated in the Kashmir region. According to Sprague (1933), the protologue to this name was published in 1839. It consists of David Don’s description, followed by a citation of the illustration (“t. 91, f. 2”: Royle 1839a) that is designated here as the lectotype of the name. Two specimens from Royle Herbarium, which were noted by Don (1840), now deposited at LIV, also refer to the I. longifolia original material. Each of these specimens has two separate leaves. One specimen (LIV.1952.121.11088.i) brings a label handwritten by Royle, and the second one (LIV.1952.121.11088.ii) has a printed copy of this label. Royle’s label suggests that he originally intended to name the specimen “ Iris periscapas ” and indicated the Mussoorie Experimental Garden as the cultivation locality. He also noted before the diagnosis ( Royle 1839a) that “ I. longifolia was grown in the Mussoorie Experimental Garden from seeds procured from Cashmere”. Royle was the superintendent of the Botanical Garden in Saharanpur and grew many of his specimens at the Mussoorie Experimental Garden (MEG), Uttarakhand State, northern India (G. Reid, pers. comm.). Since he wrote “in M.E.G.” on the label, as well as in the published text, I would assume that this is the correct location and that the Saharanpur Botanical Garden in the diagnosis is an error. The figure, designated as the lectotype, clearly shows that in the outer perigone segments, the blade is wider at the bottom and has an obtuse apex. These features of flower are typical for I. lactea , which, the same as for I. oxypetala Bunge (1833: 63) , is considered an alien species in northern India ( Boltenkov et al. 2018).

In 1835, Royle presented to the Horticultural Society of London some iris seeds, from which plants were grown in the experimental garden of the Society. Iris fragrans Lindley (1840) was described from these plants. A figure from the protologue was designated as the lectotype of this name. Lindley noted that this plant is native to the north of India, where it was found by Royle. In spite of the insignificant differences between I. fragrans and I. longifolia , noted in the protologue, both taxa belong to the same species. The I. fragrans description and the morphological features of flower organs, shown in the figure, indicate that this taxon belongs to I. lactea f. biglumis . Maximowicz (1880) also attributed I. fragrans to the variety with wide and obtuse outer perianth segments, which corresponds to I. lactea .

Iris pabularia was described by Ermens ( Grisard 1888) based on cultivated plants raised from seeds by the French botanist Charles Naudin, to whom this name was ascribed. The seeds were collected by the French agronomist Gérard Ermens from Jammu and Kashmir, India, where local residents called this plant “Krishum” and used its leaves as forage (“ pabularis ” in Latin stands for “fodder”). In 1881 and 1882, Ermens was in the service of the Kashmir Maharaja. In the protologue, it is noted that this plant in Kashmir is alien. I managed to find several specimens of plants cultivated in Paris during the 1880s, identified under the name I. pabularia . The first specimen (P02150010), designated here as the neotype of I. pabularia , was found to belong to I. lactea due to its outer perigone segments, being oblong-elliptic with an obtuse apex, and the length of its bracts, reaching the apex of or shorter than ovary. The second specimen (“ Iris pabularia Ndn., Krishum du Kashmyr , Iris a fourraje, Hindoustan, Kashmyr, Ecole d’Hort. de Versailles, [fr.], 17 September 1888, s.coll. s.n. Herb. Vilmorin-Andrieux” P02150328 [digital images!]) can also be useful for identifying plants. Currently ( Wang et al. 2008), the name Krishum is also associated with I. lactea var. chinensis (Fisch. ex Sims 1822: t. 2331) Koidzumi (1925: 300), which is a heterotypic synonym of I. oxypetala .

Iris ensata var. grandiflora was described by Dykes (1912) based on cultivated plants raised from seeds collected in Gyantse, Tibet Autonomous Region, China, and received from the Irish horticulturist William Gumbleton. Iris ser. Lacteae species were for a long time erroneously referred to as I. ensata Thunberg (1794: 328) . I could not find the original material of I. ensata var. grandiflora in any herbarium. As a consequence, a neotypification is required according to the Art. 19.13 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018). For this purpose, the specimen from cultivated plants (“ Iris ensata, Gyangtse , Tibet, [fl.], 26 April [19]14, s.coll. s.n. Comm. Mr. Dykes”, K!) could be selected as the neotype. Unfortunately, this specimen cannot be critically identified for the purpose of precise application of the name to a taxon, since it is represented by a flower stem and two separate bracts only. The neotype designated here is a specimen (E00711862!) that was collected near Gyantse, China. This is the area, from which seeds of I. ensata var. grandiflora originated. After describing this taxon, the author included the plants with large flowers from Tibet in I. ensata f. tibetica Dyke (1916: 194) and, in his final work ( Dykes 1924), identified the plants from the mountains of western China ( I. ensata f. tibetica ) as I. ensata var. grandiflora . Rodionenko (2006, 2013) noted that plants with large flowers (8–10 cm in diameter) occur in West Siberia and can be considered as a form. Both the phylogenetic and morphological analyses have confirmed that the plants from southern Tibet ( I. ensata var. grandiflora ) belong to I. lactea ( Boltenkov et al. 2018) . This widespread species is extremely variable in overall height of plant and size of vegetative and floral parts. In my opinion, there is no reason for recognizing the large flowering plants of I. lactea at the varietal level.

Iris iliensis was described by Poljakov (1950) from the Ili River valley, southeastern Kazakhstan, without indicating any specimen or gathering as the type. Poljakov noted that I. iliensis is distributed in southeastern Kazakhstan (Almaty Region) and northwestern China (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region) and occurs on slightly alkali meadows in the Ili River valley. Wherein, the author specify the herbaria in which the “typus [holotype]” and “cotypus” are deposited: “Inst. Bot. Ac. Sc. URSS conservatur [LE]” and “Inst. Bot. Ac. Sc. Kas. RSS (Alma-ata) [AA]”, respectively. The term “ cotypus ” is the obsolete definition for those specimens (i.e. syntypes or paratypes) used by the authors in addition to the type and its duplicates in earlier Russian publications ( Korovina 1986). From this, it may follow that the original material of I. iliensis was represented by two gatherings which consist of a holotype and “ cotypus ”. Goloskokov (1963) previously reported that the type of I. iliensis had been lost, and the specimen deposited at АА is probably a just from the topotypical locality. Unfortunately, the relevant material at LE was lost and, in spite of several attempts, have not been found. Thus, if the holotype is lost or destroyed, a lectotype may be designated from the original material following to the Art. 9.3 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018). The specimen from AA, accompanied by a label with Poljakov’s handwriting “ Iris iliensis P. Pol. sp. nov. ( I. ensata Thunb. pro parte)”, is designated here as the lectotype. Also it contains a printed label with the note “[ ISO ]TYPUS”. According to this information, I can safely assume that Poljakov could use this specimen as an isotype, rather than a paratype or topotype. The lectotype specimen was collected in the Maraldy natural landmark (Almaty Region, Kazakhstan), 25 km east of Almaty, in the Talgar River basin (A. Kurmantayeva, pers. comm.). Grubov (1970) placed I. iliensis in synonymy of I. lactea , and subsequently this taxon has never been considered as independent (cf. Rodionenko 2006, 2013, Boltenkov et al. 2016, 2018).