Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. var. β ceratophylla Willk.

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 : 138-144

4. Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. var. β ceratophylla Willk.

In Willkomm & Lange, Prodromus Florae Hispanicae 2: 82 (1865).

— Type (as given in protologue): “In rupestribus regionis montanae Hispanicae centralis, hucusque non nisi in Sierra de Gredos reperta (ad Serranillos, Isern, Cut.!. Puerto del Pico, Bourg.!) ubi utraque forma promiscue crescere videtur. – Julio (v.s.)”. — Lectotype (here designated): Spain, Rochers de la Sierra de Gredos au Puerto del Pico , 8-25.VII.1863, Bourgeau 2540 ( COI-WILLK 00035989 [ Fig. 3 ] ; isolecto-, A 00251664 (specimen to the left), HEID 702282 (specimen to the left), MPU (2 sheets), W (2 sheets, one of them with two specimen; the isolectotype is the specimen to the left]).

REMARKS

These names were published by Willkomm in Willkomm & Lange (1865) as S. oblongifolia α obtusifolia and S. oblongifolia β ceratophylla . The author did not mentioned the rank of “ α ” and “ β ” in the introductory chapter of Prodromus Florae Hispanicae. However, Willkomm ( Willkomm & Lange 1865: 81) cited “ S. var. vulgaris S. rosmarinifoliae ”, indicating the rank of S. rosmarinifolia L. α vulgaris Boiss.; therefore the rank of “ α ” and “ β ” can clearly be established as variety. In addition, Lange in Willkomm & Lange (1880), cited the varietal status of both names.

The varieties “ obtusifolia ” and “ ceratophylla ” are from the same locus classicus: “ In rupestribus regionis montanae Hispanicae centralis, hucusque non nisi in Sierra de Gredos reperta (ad Serranillos, Isern, Cut.!. Puerto del Pico, Bourg.!) ubi utraque forma promiscue crescere videtur. – Julio (v.s.) ” (Willkomm in Willkomm & Lange 1865). Willkomm also mentioned “ Serranillos ” in the protologue of S. heterophylla . This indicates that Willkomm granted a varietal status to the intrapopulational variation.

The specimens COI-WILLK 00035955 and COI-WILLK 00035989 of Willkomm’s herbarium are on the same sheet ( Fig. 3 ). This sheet has two labels in the lower left-hand margin with the following notation in black ink: Label 1 (Bourgeau’s handwritten notation): “E. Bourgeau – Pl. d’Espagne 1863 // 2540. Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. Diagn. / Pl. Or. Ser.2, fasc. 3, p. 18 (Planta herbaria Paroniani, cujus patria nodium involucrate) // (J. Gay) // Rochers de la Sierra de Gredos au Puerto del Pico // 8 et 25 juill”; Label 2 (Willkomm’s handwritten notation): “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [underlined] // 1. var. α obtusifolia / 2. var. β ceratophylla ”. Voucher specimens from the locus classicus and with the number “ 2540 ” were found in A 00251664, G, HEID 702282, LY (2 sheets), MA 720935, MPU (3 sheets), P (3 sheets) and W (3 sheets), but they do not include a revision label of Willkomm with the epithets “ obtusifolia ” and “ ceratophylla ”.

The collection to the left, COI-WILLK 00035955, comprises two samples from the same gathering, labelled with the name “ Santolina oblongifolia var. α obtusifolia ” (lectotype here designated; Fig. 3 ). One of them (sample to the right) has three flowering stems and a small sterile stem, and the other (sample to the left) is a robust sample with four flowering stems and several vegetative stems. The lectotype has two revision labels by Sánchez-Mata and Sardinero with the following notation in black ink: Label 1: “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. var. obtusifolia Willk. in Willk. & Lange // Lectotype [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”; Label 2: “ Santolina oblongifolia Boiss. [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”. Both samples have spatulate leaves, but the flowering stems are strongly thickened above and the capitula are big ( Fig. 3 ). The literature does not show the publication of this lectotype by Sánchez-Mata & Sardinero. There is another specimen with the name “ Santolina oblongifolia var. α obtusifolia ” in W herbarium. The sheet (W 0026403; Fig. 4 ) has a different collection date (Sierra de Gredos, Leg. Bourgeau 3.VII.1863, Cour. Willkomm), and the number “2540” is not shown. This specimen does not show intermediate characteristics between S. oblongifolia and S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia . All the characteristics fit with those listed in the protologue (Appendix 1).

Jordan & Fourreau (1869) published a new taxon ( S. sericea ) based on plants from the locus classicus of the varieties obtusifolia and ceratophylla. However, they did not cite it in the protologue. They also published a detailed diagnosis of S. sericea (Appendix 1). Furthermore, figure 321, table 240 ( Jordan & Fourreau 1869) shows a robust sample of S. sericea . Two sheets are preserved in the Jordan’s herbarium (LY) with the epithets “ sericea ”. The records indicate that the sample Jordan used to illustrate this name was split into two units and mounted on two sheets. They were labelled as “ 1 ère feuille ” ( Fig. 5 ) and “ 2 ème feuille ” ( Fig. 6 , specimen to the right).

The sheet designated “ 1 ère feuille ” (Jordan’s handwritten notation in graphite in the lower left margin) has a sample, in the centre of the sheet, with three flowering stems, two fragments of flowering stems and three sterile stems. There is also a large, isolated sterile stem to the right of the sample ( Fig. 5 ) [this sample is the portion to the right-hand of the original specimen]. A label in the central lower margin indicates: “ Santolina sericea [underlined] // Jord. et Fourr. // Lectotypus [underlined] // D. Rivera // 18/10/1984 [D. Rivera’s handwritten notation]”. This lectotype was not published by D. Rivera.

The sheet designated “ 2 ème feuille ” (Jordan’s handwritten notation in the central lower margin in graphite) has two samples ( Fig. 6 ). The sample to the right is the portion to the left-hand-side of the original material. It has a decumbent branch with eight flowering stems. The sample to the left (representing a different gathering) has a small branch with three flowering stems. This sample shows clear intermediate characteristics (linear and narrowly spatulate leaves, peduncles strongly thickened above and umbilicate capitula) between S. oblongifolia and S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia .

The lectotype is the specimen from the sheet designated “1ère feuille” ( Fig. 5 [sample to the left]). It has three flowering stems and three other short vegetative stems. Furthermore, Nyman (1879) cited the present Bourgeau’s collection as S. oblongifolia .

Willkomm in Willkomm & Lage (1865), in the protologue of the variety ceratophylla , cited S. heterophylla as a synonym of this name.

There are two possibilities regarding S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla :

– Option 1: Willkomm created a new name, at varietal rank for S. heterophylla (even if he did not use the same final epithet). This theory is supported by the following evidences: 1) Willkomm & Cutanda in Willkomm (1859) in the protologue of S. heteroplylla wrote “An varietas S. oblongifoliae?”, indicating that the authors had doubts about the species status of S. heterophylla ; 2) both names have the same locus classicus; 3) the single specimen cited in the protologue of S. heterophylla (COI-WILLK 0035956) bears the both names; 4) Willkomm (1865) cited S. heterophylla as synonym of the variety “ ceratophylla ”. If this is the case, the two names ( S. heteroplylla and S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla) have the same lectotype (COI-WILLK 0035956, here designated; see ICBN: art. 7.3 and 7.4; McNeill et al. 2006), therefore the both names are homotypic synonyms.

– Option 2: Willkomm created a new taxon at varietal rank for S. heterophylla . This theory is supported by the following evidences: 1) the author published a more accurate diagnosis with elements of the diagnosis of S. heterophylla ; 2) he changed “ spathulato-linearibus ” ( S. heterophylla ) to “ cuneato-linearia ” ( S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla); 3) the author included new elements in the diagnosis: “ folia superiora aut summa integerrima, omnia virentia ”; and 4) Willkomm studied more specimens and redefined the concept of S. heterophylla . If the option 2 is correct, the specimen to the right ( Fig. 3 ; COI-WILLK 00035989) is the lectotype (here designated) of S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla. The sample has two flowering stems and a sterile stem.This specimen has two revision labels by Sánchez-Mata & Sardinero with the following notation in black ink (the labels are placed under one of the specimens of the variety “ obtusifolia ”, probably a handling error): 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]”. However, the specimen COI-WILLK 00035956 ( Fig. 2 , see lectotypification of S. heterophylla ) was also selected by Sánchez-Mata & Sardinero as typus of Santolina oblongifolia var. ceratophylla . The specimens display characteristics consistent with those listed in the protologue (Appendix 1) and show characteristics intermediate between S. oblongifolia and S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia . AORG considers that option 2 is the most appropriate.

Figures

FIG 3. — Lectotype of Santolina oblongifolia var. α obtusifolia Willk. (COI-WILLK 00035955) and lectotype of S. oblongifolia var. β ceratophylla Willk. (COI-WILLK 00035989).

FIG 4. — Specimen labelled by Willkomm as Santolina oblongifolia var. obtusifolia Willk. The sheet has a different collection date for the type material (Sierra de Gredos, Leg. Bourgeau 3.VII.1863, Cour. Willkomm), and the number “2540” is not shown.

FIG 5. — Lectotype of Santolina sericea Jord. & Fourr. (LY, “1ère feuille”, specimen to the left).

FIG 6. — Isolectotype of Santolina sericea Jord. & Fourr. (LY, “2ème feuille”, specimen to the right).

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