Rhus cotinus L.

Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, 2016, Lectotypification of Rhus cotinus L., replaced synonym of Cotinus coggygria Scop. (Anacardiaceae), Candollea 71 (2), pp. 307-309 : 308

Rhus cotinus L. , Sp. Pl.: 267. 1753.

÷ Cotinus coggygria Scop., Fl. Carniol. , ed. 2, 1: 220. 1771.

Lectotypus (designated here): Herb. Clifford: 111, Cotinus 1, 3A ( BM [ BM000558435 ]).

Notes. – Linnaeus’s protologue consists of a nomen specificum legitimum “ RHUS foliis simplicibus obovatis” followed by three synonyms, and as geographical locality “Habitat in Lombardia Italiae & ad radices Apenninorum”. The first synonym “ Cotinus foliis obverse ovatis” was cited from van Royen (1740: 243) and an earlier Linnaean work ( Linnaeus, 1738: 111), the second synonym “ Cotinus coriaria ” was cited from Dodoëns (1616: 778-779), and the third synonym “Cocconilea s. Coccygria” from Bauhin (1623: 415).

Dodoëns (1616: 778) provides an illustration “ Cotinus coriaria ” that is considered original material, and could be selected as lectotype.

Among the original material there are three specimens in the Clifford Herbarium at the Natural History Museum in London (BM) (see Jarvis 2007: 794). The sheet Herb. Clifford: 111, Cotinus 1, 3A (BM [BM000558435]) bears a fragment with leaves and an inflorescence. The sheet Herb. Clifford: 111, Cotinus 1, 3B (BM [BM000558436]) bears also a fragment with leaves and an inflorescence, and the sheet Herb. Clifford: 111, Cotinus 1, 3C (BM [BM000558437]) bears a fragment with leaves and two inflorescences.

On the other hand, in the Linnaean herbarium at LINN there is a sheet [Herb. Linn. N° 378.27], that bears a fragment well preserved of this species, with leaves and an inflorescence, and is annotated “ Polonia ” and “ Cotinus ” by Linnaeus. However, this sheet lacks the original Linnaean species number in the Species Plantarum, in this case the number “12”, a very important link to the Linnaeus’s work, and explicitly referring to the number of the species account in Linnaeus’s protologue (see Stearn, 1957; Turland & Jarvis, 1997; Turland, 2006; Jarvis, 2007); therefore the material is a post-1753 addition to the Linnaean collection and thus not original material for the name.

We have been unable to locate any further original material in any Linnaean or Linnaean–linked herbaria (e.g., in L [van Royen’s collection which is linked to the synonym by van Royen (1740)] or UPS [Burser’s collection which is linked to the Bauhin’s synonym in 1623]).

Among the candidate elements (specimens at BM and the illustration by Dodoëns, 1616), we designate the specimen at Herb. Clifford: 111, Cotinus 1, 3A (BM [ BM000558435 ]) (image available at) as the lectotype. This specimen is the most complete and informative original material available and it matches Linnaeus’ protologue. Further this selection follows the practice outlined by Jarvis (2007: 21-22) wherein when both well-preserved specimens and illustrations are represented in the original material, specimens should be preferred for lectotypification because of their potential ability to provide an enormous range of additional characters (micromorphological, chemical, molecular) that cannot matched by illustration.