Cytisus spinescens C.Presl, Fl. Sicul.: XIX. 1826. [October 1826] nom. illeg. (Art. 53.1. of the ICN)
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.155.54224 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E4B17467-9873-5C11-BAE3-C2B4C62FBD2B |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Cytisus spinescens C.Presl, Fl. Sicul.: XIX. 1826. [October 1826] nom. illeg. (Art. 53.1. of the ICN) |
| status |
|
= Cytisus spinescens Sieber ex Spreng.
≡ Chamaecytisus spinescens Rothm., Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 53(2): 143. 1944. [1 June 1944]
Ind. Loc.
: “[Sicilia]”.
Type
(lectotype, here designated): Italy. [The label written by K.B. Presl] Cytisus spinescens Presl non Spr. / Insula Capri et in Sicilia, a Schleichero et collegit Sieber. // [The label written by L. Thomas] Cytisus nanus Willd seu nova species / Calabre, s.d., s.coll. [L. Thomas] s.n. (PR 375417!, Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ; isolectotypes PRC 450971! [Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ], PRC 452282! [Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ], W 333912 [digital photo!, the plant in the right bottom corner] [Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ]).
Note.
During his professional life, K.B. Presl worked simultaneously as curator of Prague National Museum collections [at that time Patriotic Museum in Bohemia] (1823-1846) and in various positions in other Prague institutions ( Maiwald 1904: 180; Skočdopolová 1995). At the beginning of his career, he taught economic botany in the garden of Count of Malabaila de Canal (from 1826), later at the Faculty of Medicine (from 1829) and Philosophy (from 1833). As noted by Skočdopolová (1995), Presl frequently transferred herbarium specimens from Museum collections to his office at the university because of more suitable conditions for his work. For this reason, K.B. Presl’s collections, including types, are variously distributed between today’s herbaria PR and PRC. After a detailed search for original material of the above mentioned names, we found seven specimens deposited in PR and PRC putatively belonging to different gatherings and identified as three distinct taxa. We found two specimens of C. affinis C.Presl (PRC 450903 [Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ], PR 375413 [Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ]) collected by the author in Sicily in 1817. The specimen deposited in PRC (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ) bears a Presl’s label encompassing the species name and rather detailed locality, all written in italics, typical for his own collection ( Domina and Štěpánek 2009). The specimen in PR (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ) bears a label cut out from a specimen folder used at that time in C.M. Sternberg’s herbarium, including the species name (at varietal rank, " Cytisus triflorus L’her. β. C. affinis Presl."), locality, collector and a short diagnosis against C. triflorus L’Hér. In addition, there is attached a small label from Presl’s exsiccata collection "Flora sicula", suggesting that duplicates of this collection were distributed in the past and can be found elsewhere. Both specimens look very similar in respect of phenology and form of preparation and although they differ in the month of collection (May versus April), this likely originates from labelling of specimens in different times, and both specimens could be part of a single gathering. Both specimens are original material. They bear the name " Cytisus affinis Presl" written by himself, and in this case it seems unquestionable that the name C. affinis is based on specimens collected by Presl in Sicily. In any case, bearing two different dates, we prudentially consider them as two different gatherings. As the specimen in PRC [Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ] is more complete, we designate it as the lectotype of the name. From the morphological study of this specimen it is obvious that it agrees with the short original description, so that it can be stated that C. affinis C.Presl is a heterotypic synonym of C. villosus Pourr. Interestingly, in the PR label this taxon is subordinate to Cytisus triflorus L’Hér., and Presl himself later recognised C. affinis C.Presl as a synonym of C. triflorus [written without name’s authority], a species currently accepted under the name C. villosus Pourr. (see below), in his unpublished and undated second volume of Flora Sicula.
More problematic are the specimens belonging to the original material of Cytisus candidus and C. spinescens . We have found one specimen belonging to Cytisus candidus in PR (PR 375660!) [Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ] and one in PRC (PRC 454917!) [Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ], both showing well preserved colours. In PR and PRC, we have also found three specimens belonging to C. spinescens : (PR 375417 [Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ], PRC 450971 [Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ], and PRC 452282 [Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ] showing very brownish tint caused probably by very slow drying.
In addition, in W there is a sheet (W333912 photo!) [Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ] bearing four specimens with four labels bearing different names and collected in several localities of peninsular Italy: Cytisus spinosus DC. (two specimens from the Gargano), C. ramosissimus Ten. from the mountains near Castellammare, and C. nanus Willd. from Calabria. Although all specimens from PR and PRC bear Presl’s handwritten identifications, the plants belong to the same taxon and all agree with the protologues of both Presl’s C. candidus and C. spinescens . More specifically, both names were allegedly based on material originated from Sicily, as can be deduced from (i) descriptions of both taxa included in Flora Sicula ( Presl 1826), and (ii) specification about the locality of C. candidus being collected in two carbonate promontories near Palermo ("Habitat in regione collina in saxosis apricis sterilibus ad promontorium Zafferana una vire, altera vire in monte Pellegrino", see Presl, undated, unpub. msc. Flora Sicula vol. 2) or in Sicily in general ( Presl’s annotations on two specimens deposited in PRC "E[x] Sicilia"; PRC 454917 and PRC 450971). Importantly, from the taxonomic point of view, both Cytisus candidus and C. spinescens C.Presl, are heterotypic synonyms of C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. (see below), a taxon which, besides Presl’s records from Flora Sicula, has never been reported from Sicily ( Bartolucci et al. 2018). In fact, C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. is a taxon confined solely to the Italian peninsula (northwards to Latium, Umbria and Marche) and to the NE coast of the Adriatic Sea. In addition to the doubtful location (Sicily), it has become obvious from the elements specified below that these specimens were not collected by Presl himself, but by Franz Wilhelm Sieber (1789-1844) and by Charles-François-Louis-Alexandre [Luigi] Thomas (1784-1823) (cf. Burdet 1978; see also an annotation to the Table 1 View Table 1 ), respectively. We hypothesise that these discrepancies in locations and collectors have likely originated from dividing and postponing the labelling of these specimens by Presl himself. Such a mistake has previously been documented in Asplenium lepidum C.Presl, which was allegedly collected by him in Bohemia, but actually by Anton Rochel (1770-1847) in the region of Banat (currently in Romania and Serbia) (P. Mráz, unpublished data).
In the case of Cytisus candidus , the specimen PR 375660 (Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ) bears, in addition to Presl’s label, also Sieber’s original label of " Cytisus spinosus DC." from his exsiccata collection " Plantae Neapolitanae et Apulae". As stated on both labels, it was collected in Gargano, where this species (currently C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng.) occurs ( Fenaroli 1970; Bartolucci et al. 2018). Interestingly, Sieber’s original label is missing in the specimen found in PRC (PRC 454917, Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ), which bears two labels written by Presl only (Table 1 View Table 1 ). We found Sieber’s duplicates of this gathering also in JE (JE 00021324 Photo!) and W (W 333912 photo!, plant on the left bottom, Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ). Importantly, both these specimens bear Sieber’s exsiccata labels and the plants show the same colour and character as the specimens housed at PR (Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ) and PRC (Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ). We here selected the specimen at PR (PR 375660), bearing the original label from Sieber’s " Plantae Neapolitanae et Apulae" collection, as the lectotype of C. candidus C.Presl. The specimen PRC 454917, as well as the duplicates in JE and W, are therefore isolectotypes of C. candidus C.Presl.
The three remaining specimens (PR 375417 [Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ], PRC 450971 [Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ], and PRC 452282 [Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ]) are again morphologically very homogeneous and were consistently identified by Presl as " Cytisus spinescens Presl", although labelled as being collected from three different sites (see Table 1 View Table 1 ). Very important in this respect is the sheet W 333912 (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ), with the specimen in the right bottom corner " Cytisus nanus Willd." collected by Thomas in Calabria. Importantly, a similar label showing the same plant name and locality accompanies the specimen PR 375417 (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ), whose plant shows similar / identical habitus as the one at W. The same can be argued for the specimens from PRC (PRC 450971 [Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ], and PRC 452282 [Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ]), albeit missing Thomas’ label. On the contrary, one of the PRC specimens (PRC 452282) bears Sieber’s label of his " Plantae Neapolitanae et Apulae" collection (the same of C. candidus in PR 375660 [Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ] and W 333912 [Fig. 2B View Figure 2 , plant on the left bottom]). Because this label is missing on C. candidus specimen from PRC (PRC 454917, Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ), we hypothesise that Sieber’s label attached to the specimen of C. spinescens C.Presl (PRC 452282, Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ) emerged from a mistake and was, in fact, exchanged with that of C. candidus (PRC 454917, Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ). Since the specimen PR 375417 [Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ] contains the best preserved plant and bears both Presl’s identification label and original label by Thomas, we designate it as the lectotype of the illegitimate name C. spinescens C.Presl. Consequently, we consider the specimens in PRC (Figs 2C View Figure 2 , 2D View Figure 2 ) and W (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 , the plant in the right bottom corner) as duplicates of Thomas’ collection from Calabria, and hence isolectotypes.
A possible scenario leading to the current “messy” state is as follows. During the work on his Flora Sicula (between 1817 and 1825-1826), K. B. Presl had access to five gatherings of Cytisus from Italy. Two of them ( C. affinis C.Presl) were part of his own herbarium and were collected by him in Sicily, another two (one by Sieber, one by Thomas) were part of Prague National Museum collections and came from Italian mainland. The fifth is a Sieber’s gathering from Capri Island (Campania, southern Italy) and bears Presl’s annotation ‘Sieber’. It is deposited in PRC (PRC 455779) with no duplicate in PR. Our hypothesis is that Presl divided the museum specimens and transferred fragments to his own herbarium, and vice versa, donating duplicates of his own collection from Sicily to the Museum. We suppose also that during this “fragmentation” of specimens, he probably did not annotate carefully these fragments, and this may be the main reason for the chaotic situation concerning these collections.
Based on the morphology of the specimens of Presl’s C. candidus and C. spinescens , which agrees with the short original descriptions, we conclude that both names are synonyms of C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. Because C. spinescens C.Presl was described about seven months later than C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. ( Stafleu and Cowan 1983, 1985), and because both names are based on different types (see also below), Presl’s name is a later and heterotypic homonym of C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng., illegitimate according to Art. 53.1 of the ICN. Consequently, Presl’s name should not be used as an accepted name as it is currently treated in The Plant List (2019) or in the International Legume Database ( Roskov et al. 2006) and in Euro+Med Plantbase ( Euro+Med 2006). Concerning the name C. spinescens C.Presl, it is noteworthy that in his unpublished second volume of Flora Sicula, Presl wrote that its provenance was unclear for him (' locus specialis mihi amplius non constat ') and unclear was for him also the status of C. spinescens Sieber ex Spreng. with respect to C. candidus ('Quid vero C. spinescens Spreng. … est … An species sequens?' [the next species in the manuscript is C. candidus ]).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
|
Kingdom |
|
|
Phylum |
|
|
Class |
|
|
Order |
|
|
Family |
|
|
Genus |
Cytisus spinescens C.Presl, Fl. Sicul.: XIX. 1826. [October 1826] nom. illeg. (Art. 53.1. of the ICN)
| Domina, Gianniantonio, Bartolucci, Fabrizio, Mraz, Patrik, Peruzzi, Lorenzo, Conti, Fabio, Sida, Otakar & Galasso, Gabriele 2020 |
Cytisus spinescens
| C. Presl, Fl. Sicul.: XIX. 1826. [October 1826 |