Cleome arabica Linnaeus (1755: 20)

Roalson, Eric H., 2021, A revised synonymy, typification, and key to species of Cleome sensu stricto (Cleomaceae), Phytotaxa 496 (1), pp. 54-68 : 58-59

3. Cleome arabica Linnaeus (1755: 20) .

Lectotype (designated here): Arabia, F. Hasselquist s.n. (S-Bergius 2.2.3.2 [photo!]; isolectotypes: S-Bergius 2.2.3.1 [photo!], S-Linn. S09-24947 [photo!]).

Heterotypic synonyms: Cleome trinervia Fresenius (1834: 177) . Type: Wadi Scheck., 4000’, Mai, Rueppel s.n. (FR, probably destroyed; see Lobin 1999; lectotype, designated here: Mus. Senckenberg. 1: Tab. XI. 1834).— Cleome aschersoniana Pfund (1874: 413) . Type: “in monte Atakka prope Suez.” (not located).

Note 1: Linnaeus (1755) clearly refers to a collection by F. Hasselquist as the type of C. arabica , but there are two sheets in the S-Bergius herbarium of the F. Hasselquist collection. I here designate S-Bergius 2.2.3.2 as the lectotype as it is in slightly better condition than the other. Jarvis (2007) attributes lectotypification to Hedge & Lamond in Reichinger, Fl. Iranica 68: 27. 1970: “Hasselquist (SBT)”; however, as there are two sheets in the Bergius herbarium, a specific sheet as lectotype needs to be identified, which is done here. Additionally, the collection S-Linn. S09- 24947 in the S-Linnaeus herbarium is considered part of the F. Hasselquist collection and therefore type material (as described by Kers 1966: 340). Further, there is material in the S-Bergius herbarium (2.3.9.52) that is not type material – it was labeled C. arabica but it is a species of Trigonella (Fabaceae) . There are also two collections in the Linnaeus herbarium (LINN 850.20 and LINN 850.21) that are not C. arabica and are not type material. Those two collections are C. amblyocarpa and the misidentifications are likely the result of the confusion of these two species ( Kers 1966).

Note 2: It has been presumed that the type material of C. trinervia is lost, as was suggested by Lobin (1999, p. 9: [translated] “Already in the handwritten catalog of Geyler (1867-87) not mentioned. The type material must therefore be considered lost.”). FR has a collection ( FR barcode FR0030179 ) that is labeled as possible type material, but there is no information associated with the specimen, other than a handwritten label “ Cleome nova trinervia” . I cannot unequivocally determine this as the type. The protologue does refer to a drawing (“ Tafel XI ”), and I designate it here as the lectotype .

Note 3: While the description of Cleome aschersoniana fits Cleome arabica Linnaeus , no type material or original collections have been found. It is possible that there is material at B, C, CAIH, or elsewhere that has never been recognized as type material and therefore not digitized.

Geographic distribution: Egypt, Sinai, Israel, Iran, Arabia.