Linaria cavanillesii Chav.

Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Sáez, Llorenç, Laguna, Emilio, Guara, Miguel & Crespo, Manuel B., 2013, Remarks on the type material of Linaria cavanillesii Chav. (Antirrhineae, Veronicaceae), Adansonia (3) 35 (2), pp. 365-373 : 368-372

Linaria cavanillesii Chav.

Monographie des Antirrhinées: 117 (1833) ( Antirrhinum triphyllum sensu Cav. , icon 2: 61, tab. 179 [1793], non L., sp. pl.: 613 [1753])

TYPUS. — Spain. Hab. in Hispaniâ; in umbrosis montium de la Cova alta, prope Albaydam et Palomera, in Ayorae ditione (Cav.), (lecto- [corrected here], Tournefort 942 [P00651965]!, Fig. 1 ; isolecto-, Salvador 589 [BC!], Fig. 2 ).

SYNTYPI. — MA 109277! ( Fig. 3 ) ; MA 333291! ( Fig. 4 ); [icon] Antirrhinum triphyllum sensu Cavanilles , icon 2: tab. 179 (1793) .

OBSERVATIONS

Viano (1978: 251) referred the sheet P- Tournefort 942 as “ syntypi ” of L. cavanillesii , probably due to the fact that it included two fragments, which otherwise were in fairly good condition and lacked explicit collection data. Probably, she had not in mind to lectotypify that name, because did not explicitly select any of those fragments as the true lectotype, which would have matched the version of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature ( ICBN) ruling by that time (the Leningrad Code, adopted in 1975). However, we do not believe that lectotypification is now necessary after application of the current ICN (Melbourne Code; McNeill et al. 2012). Both fragments in P- Tournefort 942 correspond to a single gathering, and therefore that sheet is a “specimen” as defined in art. 8.2. Furthermore, Viano’s designation of a single element (Tournefort’s specimen) as the type, under the indication “ syntypi ”, is here treated as an “error” to be corrected as “ lectotype ”, according to art. 9.9 of the Vienna Code. Therefore, this should be regarded as a valid type designation (see art. 7.10), specifically a lectotype (art. 9.2). The remaining elements of the protologue are to be treated as indicated above .

Although the specimen MA 109277 perhaps would have been the best choice for a lectotype of Linaria cavanillesii , as it includes the fragments that better fit the Cavanillesian illustration cited in Chavannes protologue, Viano’s choice of lectotype on Tournefort’s gathering does not contradict the protologue and therefore it must be followed .

Figures

FIG. 1. — Lectotype of Linaria cavanillesii Chav. (P00651965, Tournefort 942). Transcript of the original label: Linaria Hispanica trifolia/ Latifolia Villosa Lutea.© Herbarium P, reproduced with permission.

FIG. 2. — Duplicate of the lectotype (isolectotype) of Linaria cavanillesii Chav.(BC; Salvador 589). Transcript of the original label: Linaria Hispanica triphylla et latifolia villosa / Inst.rei. herb. 169 / Antirrhinum triphyllum? // In monte la Sierra de Mariola et Moncabrer in regno valentino. © Herbarium BC, reproduced with permission.

FIG. 3. — Syntype of Linaria cavanillesii Chav. (MA 109277).Transcript of the original label: Antirrhinum triphyllum/Icon. Tab. 179/Cova Alta de Sta Ana/Abril. © Herbarium MA, reproduced with permission.

FIG. 4. — Syntype of Linaria cavanillesii Chav. (MA 333291).Transcript of the original label:Antirrhinum triphyllum/Cav. Icon. est sp. n./ Cav. herb. © Herbarium MA, reproduced with permission.