Santolina heterophylla Willk. & Cut., 1859

Rivero-Guerra, Aixa O., 2012, Santolina orocarpetana sp. nov. (Asteraceae: Anthemideae), a new species from the Iberian Peninsula. Revision of the lectotype of S. oblongifolia Boiss., Adansonia (3) 34 (1), pp. 133-154 : 136-138

2. Santolina heterophylla Willk. & Cut. ,

non S. pectinata Benth. ,

non Lag. var. β heterophylla DC , nom inval.

In Willkomm, Linnaea 30: 106 (1859).

— Type (as given in protologue): “In Hispania centrali regione montana: in monte Sierra de Gredos et in provinciae Avilensi prope Servanillos, Cutanda et Ysern! (1857). Floret Julio”. — Lectotype (here designated): Spain, Sierra de Gredos , VI.1855, Ysern s. n. ( COI-WILLK 00035956 ; Fig. 2 ).

REMARKS

De Candolle (1837) included S. canescens and S. viscosa into the circumscription of the genus Santolina L. , and reduced S. pectinata Lag. as a variety of S. pectinata Benth. (nom. illegit.). The author retained the epithet “ pectinata ” for a variety α, whereas he conserved the type of S. pectinata Lag. for a variety β. He published var. β. heterophylla based on plants from the locus classicus of S. pectinata . He also cited S. pectinata Lag. as a synonym of this name, adding a short note as diagnosis “ foliis infimis et junioribus linearibus indivisis margine tuberculatis ”. Santolina pectinata Benth. , non Lag. var. β. heterophylla DC. , is an invalid name(ICBN: arts 53.1, 26.2; Mcneill et al. 2006).

Furthermore,Willkomm & Cutanda in Willkomm (1859), and Willkomm in Willkomm & Lange (1865) ignored the variety β. heterophylla published by De Candolle (1837). Willkomm & Cutanda in Willkomm (1859) published a new taxon, S. heterophylla , based on a specimen from Sierra de Gredos. Willkomm in Willkomm & Lange (1865) reduced S. heterophylla Wilk. & Cut. to a variety of S. rosmarinifolia , but he omitted Cutanda as author of the epithet. He cited S. pectinata Lag. as a synonym of “ variat 1 ” of S. rosmarinifolia L. var. β heterophylla Willk. , whereas Willkomm (1893) changed the original concept and accepted S. rosmarinifolia var. β heterophylla Willk. , f. 1 Willk. as synonym of S. pectinata . He placed this variat in the type locality of S. pectinata , and in Sierra de la Sagra (COI-WILLK 00035964, MPU, P 00752621 from “La Puebla de Don Fadrique et montem La Sagra”).

Willkomm misspelled the locality for the lectotype of S. heterophylla ; the correct name is “Serranillos” ( Cerveira Rodrigues Gomes 2000), and it will be used hereafter in this paper.

Two collections of Isern were found. In the first one, labelled with the name “ S. oblongifolia ”, from Puerto del Pico (MA 126799), the date is only indicated as“August”.The other specimen (COI-WILLK 00035956), labelled by Willkomm with the names S. oblongifolia β ceratophylla and S. heterophylla was gathered by Isern in July 1855 in Sierra de Gredos. Presumably, Willkomm changed 1855 into 1857 during transcription of the original label.

The lectotype (COI-WILLK 00035956; Fig. 2 ) has six flowering stems and various sterile stems. The sheet has two labels in the centre of the lower margin with the following notation in black ink: Label 1: “Herbarium Willkommi [printed] // Santolina rosmarinifolia Mill. [underlined] var?. sericea [underlined] Wk.= S. heterophylla Wk. [underlined] et Cut. // Sierra de Gredos [Willkomm’s handwritten notation] // Legit [printed] Ysern // Julio 1855 [Willkomm’s handwritten notation]”; Label 2: “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [underlined] β ceratophylla [underlined] Wk. [Willkomm’s handwritten notation]”. This specimen has two revision labels by D. Sánchez-Mata and S. Sardinero with the following notation in black ink: Label 1: “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss var. ceratophylla Willk. in Willk. & Lange // Typus [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”; Label 2: “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”. This specimen displays all the characteristics listed in the protologue (Appendix 1). The lectotype clearly shows intermediate characteristics between S. oblongifolia and S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia . The relationship between S. heterophylla , S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia and S. oblongifolia has been cited by Willkomm (1859) in the protologue: “ Specie proxima S. rosmarinifoliae Mill. , a cujus formis numerosis foliis eximie heteromorphis planis sericeis statim distinguitur. Calathiorum florumque structura a S. rosmarinifolia non differre videtur, sed propter foliorum formam ab omnibus Santolinis valde discrepantem hanc stirpem ad illam speciem referre non audeo. S. oblongifolia Boiss. foliis planis sericeis pariter gaudens ramis sterilibus elongatis, foliis multo minus difformibus aliaque ratione formatis a nostra differre videtur […]”.

The sheet A 00251592 has two labels in the lower left margin: Label 1: “HERBARIUM GRAELSIANUM // PLANTAE CASTELLANAE [printed] // Santolina heterophylla Wk. // in saxosis Sierra de Gredos et Puerto del Pico prope riventos // Julio [Graells’ handwritten notation]”; and Label 2 (printed): “HERBARIUM OF GEORGE CURLING JOAD. PRESENTED BY THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEW, 1882”. The labels do not show the collector and year. The notation of the labels does not match with the lectotype, however, this specimen is the counterpart of the type material of this name. Carrasco et al. (2002) discuss the value of the collections of the Real Colegio Alfonso XII historical herbarium of San Lorenzo del Escorial (Madrid, Spain). They argue that the Graells’ collection was used by Willkomm & Lange as part of the material examined for the Prodromus florae hispanicae. However, S. heterophylla was published several years before the publication of the species corology of the genus Santolina in Prodromus florae hispanicae (1865). There is not enough evidence to justify the choice of this material as original material of S. heterophylla .

Figures

FIG 2. — Lectotype of Santolina heterophylla Willk. (COI-WILLK 00035956).