Juno tauri (Siehe ex Mallett) Kamelin (1973: 252)

Crespo, Manuel B., Martínez-Azorín, Mario & Mavrodiev, Evgeny V., 2018, Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature of juno irises (Juno, Iridaceae), Phytotaxa 376 (5), pp. 185-200 : 194-195

Juno tauri (Siehe ex Mallett) Kamelin (1973: 252)

≡ Iris tauri Siehe ex Mallett (1901: 190) , basionym ≡ I. persica var. tauri (Siehe ex Mallett) Dykes (1912: 192) . Neotype (designated by Boltenkov in Boltenkov & Govaerts 2017: 135):— TURKEY. [Mersin Province], Cilic[ian]. Taurus, 1600–2000 m, tief violet [deep violet], March-May 1898 von mir entdeckt [discovered by me], W. Siehe 29 (JE00020059 [digital image!]); isoneotypes: BM00832604 [digital image!], E00333010 [digital image!], LE00014025 [digital image!], LE00014026 [digital image!]).

– J. stenophylla subsp. stenophylla auct., non (Hausskn. ex Baker) Rodion.

Observations:—The group of Juno stenophylla (Hausskn. ex Baker 1900: 170) Rodionenko (1994: 105) [≡ Iris stenophylla Hausskn. ex Baker , basionym] is said to be widely distributed in southern Turkey, mainly on the Taurus mountain range. Two taxa have often been accepted at subspecific rank (cfr. Mathew 1989, 1997): I. stenophylla subsp. stenophylla [≡ Iris heldreichii Siehe ex Mallet (1901: 190) , nom. illeg. superfl.; ≡ Juno heldreichii Kamelin (1973: 252) ], mostly from the Cilician Taurus extending westwards to Isparta, and I. stenophylla subsp. allisonii Mathew (1981: 478) , from the former Pamphylian region (Antalya). Johnson & Güner (2002) reduced both subspecies to synonymy arguing that broad morphological, cytological and ecological variation was observed in populations of both taxa, not allowing clear taxonomic recognition. Firstly, Iris stenophylla subsp. stenophylla showed two cytotypes (2n = 24, 26) corresponding to allopatric populations (see below). Those with 2n = 24 chromosomes (counts from Kayseri province: Ziyaret Pass) bear two large satellites on the short arms of the first chromosome pair, being all 12 pairs of acrocentric chromosomes not very different in size and shape; conversely, those with 2n = 26 chromosomes (counts from Konya province: “ 30 km from Konya to Seydişehir”; Karaman province: “W of Ermenek”, and “ Sivas Karaman to Mut”; and Mersin [İçel] province: “Silifke, Göbelen, pr. Ciğşekaşı”) presented a broader variety of chromosome types, with several pairs of telocentric chromosomes together with differently sized pairs of acrocentric ones. Secondly, I. stenophylla subsp. allisonii presented consistent cytological differences in comparison with the former subspecies, such as a count of 2n = 26 (from Antalya: “ 10 km W of Gündoğmuş”, and “S of Akseki”) with three pairs of larger metacentric chromosomes, all the remaining 10 pairs being acrocentric and very similar in size and shape; therefore, differing greatly from the 2n = 26 karyotype of the former subspecies. The same karyotype characteristics were found by Koçyiğit et al. (2013) for plants they named “ I. stenophylla subsp. stenophylla ”, but indeed belonging to subsp. allisonii . Those chromosomal differences, together with a singular combination of morphological characters and molecular divergence (cfr. Ikinci et al. 2011, Mavrodiev et al. 2014), led Crespo et al. (2015: 53) to raise the latter subspecies to specific rank as Juno allisonii (B. Mathew) M.B.Crespo, Mart. -Azorín & Mavrodiev.

However, the morphological variation of the J. stenophylla group throughout its distribution range seems to be broader and other different taxa are to be considered. According to T. Hall (pers. comm.), most authors have often assumed a widely circumscribed “ I. stenophylla subsp. stenophylla ”, including both the typical Juno stenophylla , from the coastal part of the central Taurus, and Juno tauri (Siehe ex Mallett 1901: 190) Kamelin (1973: 252) [≡ Iris tauri Siehe ex Mallett ], a different species widespread in the central and western Taurus. This fact would explain the synthetic treatment proposed by Johnson & Güner (2002), who assumed that the broad variation ranges in morphology and karyology observed in the aggregate should be subsumed in a single, broadly circumscribed taxonomic entity. Nonetheless, a different approach, taking into account all available data, allows a reinterpretation of the aggregate as shown below.

On the one hand, Juno stenophylla (s.str.) typically has no prominent veining to the blade of falls, although it often has smaller blotches or dots below its darker tip; its flowers are usually large (up to 11 cm in diameter), highly scented, usually in two shades of blue, soft powdery-blue, or lavender-blue to darker blue-violet, occasionally white, and exceptionally very pale yellow, rarely with buff-yellow staining (T. Hall pers. comm.); the central ridge is usually of a dull brownish white colour, dotted at intervals with dark purple brown, and smooth ( Lynch 1904b, Dykes 1912). It is restricted to the coastal part of the central Taurus in the Çukurova Region (Mersin, Adana, Kayseri and Osmaniye provinces), occurring usually at lower elevations between 400 and 1400 m, and its chromosome number is consistently 2n = 26 (T. Hall unpubl.), unlike the 2n = 24 counts presented by Johnson & Güner (2002) for plants from Ziyaret Pass (Kayseri province) at higher elevation. These latter populations and those from neighbouring areas of eastern Taurus require further study (T. Hall pers. comm.). On the other hand, J. tauri can be recognised by its flowers being smaller (up to 8 cm in diameter), slightly scented, deeply violet-coloured, with obvious white veins to the blade of falls; the central ridge is of bright deep orange colour, with minute purple spots along the haft, and distinctly pubescent ( Lynch 1904b, Dykes 1912). It is found through the central and western Taurus (Isparta, Mersin, Konya, Karaman & Niğde provinces), often at higher elevations about 1100−2000 m, and although its chromosome number is also 2n = 26 as described above (cfr. Hall 2001, Johnson & Güner 2002, both as “ I. stenophylla subsp. stenophylla ”, M. Johnson & T. Hall unpubl.), it is sometimes 2n = 24 (T. Hall unpubl.).

All data considered, at least three taxa here regarded at species rank can be recognised in the J. stenophylla aggregate, a group currently in an apparently ongoing diversification process still not well resolved taxonomically (but see also below). Further work is needed to better understand the morphological variation of this group throughout its whole distribution.