Cytisus spinescens Sieber ex Spreng., Syst. Veg., ed. 16 3: 225. 1826. [January-March 1826]

Domina, Gianniantonio, Bartolucci, Fabrizio, Mraz, Patrik, Peruzzi, Lorenzo, Conti, Fabio, Sida, Otakar & Galasso, Gabriele, 2020, Typification and taxonomic remarks on five species names in Cytisus (Fabaceae), PhytoKeys 155, pp. 1-14 : 1

Cytisus spinescens Sieber ex Spreng., Syst. Veg., ed. 16 3: 225. 1826. [January-March 1826]

≡ Spartium spinescens (Sieber ex Spreng.) Bertol., Fl. Ital. 7(3): 345. 1850. [June 1850]

≡ [after typification] Cytisus candidus C.Presl

Ind. Loc.

"Mons Garganus Apul." Puglia.

Type

(lectotype, here designated): Italy. [The label written by K.B. Presl] Cytisus candidus Presl. / Mons Garganus Apulia / collegit Sieber // [printed label of F.W. Sieber: Plantae Neapolitanae et Apulae] Cytisus spinosus , Dec. Stachelicter Bohnenbaum. Auf felsigten nakten Stellen der Südseite des Berges Gargano, May 1812, F.W. Sieber. s.n. (PR 375660!, Fig. 1C ; isolectotype PRC 454917! [Fig. 1D ], JE 00021324 [digital photo!], W 333912 [digital photo!, the plant in the left bottom corner and the plant in the right top corner][Fig. 2B ]).

Note.

As Sprengel based his description on the exsiccata series collected and issued by F.W. Sieber, the best solution for typification would be to choose the specimen from Sieber’s collection seen by Sprengel himself. Unfortunately, after the death of his son, Sprengel’s rich herbarium was divided into many parts and sold in small portions to different specialists and institutions ( Stafleu and Cowan 1985). The largest part, containing the collections of many botanists and among them also those by Sieber, was bought by B in 1890 ( Urban 1891), and subsequently destroyed during World War II. We found unequivocal duplicates of this F.W. Sieber’s collection in herbaria PR, W and JE, and as shown above also in PRC, although incorrectly labelled later by Presl. It is interesting to note that Presl based his later homonym C. spinescens on a different gathering ( Thomas’ collection), while he described C. candidus on a F.W. Sieber’s gathering. As the above designated lectotype of C. candidus belongs, without any doubt, also to the original material of C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng, we designate it also as the lectotype of the latter name. Cytisus candidus C.Presl thus becomes a homotypic synonym of the prioritary name C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng.

This brings also another nomenclatural consequence: when treating C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. as a member of the separate genus Chamaecytisus Link, the correct name is Chamaecytisus spinescens Rothm. This is because Rothmaler (1944) based his intended "new combination" on Presl’s illegitimate name, and thus accidentally published a replacement name (Art 58.1 of the ICN), which prevents making the combination based on legitimate Sprengel’s epithethon.

Figures

Figure 1. A The specimen of Cytisus affinis C. Presl (PRC 450903) here designated as lectotype of the name B The specimen of C. affinis C. Presl (PR 375413) C The specimen (PR 375660) here designated as lectotype of the names C. candidus C. Presl and C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. D The specimen of C. candidus C. Presl (PRC 454917) here designated as isolectotype of the name (all photos reproduced with permission).

Figure 2. A The specimen PR 375417 here designated as lectotype of Cytisus spinescens C. Presl, nom. illeg. B The herbarium sheet W 333912 bearing on the right bottom corner the isolectotype here designated of C. spinescens C. Presl and on the right top and on the left bottom corners the isolectotypes of C. candidus C. Presl C The specimen PRC 450971 here designated as isolectotype of C. spinescens C. Presl, nom. illeg. D The specimen PRC 452282 here designated as isolectotype of C. spinescens C. Presl, nom. illeg. (all photos reproduced with permission).