Rhamnus infectoria Linnaeus (1767a: 49

Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo & Laguna, Emilio, 2017, Remarks on the type designation of two names in Rhamnus (Rhamnaceae), Phytotaxa 302 (3), pp. 279-284 : 280

Rhamnus infectoria Linnaeus (1767a: 49 , 1767b: 178) [ “ infectorius ”]

Type (lectotype, designated here):—Herb. Burser XXV: 9 ( UPS), the lectotype is the specimen at the right of the sheet, the specimen with fruits ( Figure 1 ).

Linnaeus’s protologue ( Linnaeus 1767a: 49, see also Linnaeus 1767b: 178) consists of a nomen specificum legitimum, “ RHAMNUS spinis terminalibus, floribus quadrifidis dioicis, caulibus procumbentibus” quoted from an earlier work ( Gérard 1761: 462). This is followed by three additional phrase names with citations: “ Rhamnus catharticus minor,” from Bauhin (1623: 478); “Lycium gallicum,” from Bauhin (1623: 478) and Bauhin & Cherler (1651: 58); and “ Spina infectoria pumila I,” from Clusius (1601: 111). Illustrations are provided by Clusius (1601: 111) and Bauhin & Cherler (1651: 58), and can be considered as Linnaeus’s original material, and eligible for lectotype selection. However, neither illustration matches with the current concept and use of the name Rhamnus infectoria . The protologue also includes “Frutex procumbens. Styli stigmata 2, reflexa. Differt a R. cathartico, corollae laciniis longitudine tubi, nec longioribus” cited from Gerard ( Gérard 1761: 462) and “Habitat in Hispania, Gallia, Italia ”.

Among the original material cited by Jarvis (2007: 791) a herbarium sheet is preserved at UPS –BURSER (Herb. Burser XXV: 9). This sheet bears two fragments, both with leaves, the left fragment with flowers and the right fragment with fruits; the sheet is labeled “Lycium Gallium Bauh. Buxdorn. Mospelii. 9” ( Fig. 1 ). Linnaeus consulted Burser’s herbarium at the University of Uppsala while he was working on the Species plantarum. The collection is named and arranged according to Bauhin (1623) Pinax theatri botanici , and Linnaeus regarded it as an authoritative source for interpretation of Bauhin’s names ( Juel 1923, Savage 1935, Stearn 1957, Jarvis 2007). Therefore, these two fragments are undoubtedly original material. Although there is nothing on the sheet that indicates two specimens, both fragments are in a different phenological state (flowering and fruiting), and therefore we consider that the sheet bears two specimens according to Art. 8.2 of the ICN, because these fragments were not collected “at one time”. This species has deciduous fruits, and the fruits are not in the plants when the flowering appears.

In the Linnaean herbarium at S-LINN there is a sheet, Herb. Linn. No. 95.11 (S-LINN) (image available at http:// linnaeus.nrm.se/botany/fbo/r/rhamn/rhampum.html.en) that bears a fragment with leaves and fruits, and is annotated “ Rhamnus pumilus / Dahl / ex herbario Joh Baunini”. This sheet is probably a fragment of the specimen at UPS as indicated by Rivas-Martínez & Pizarro (2011).

Finally, in the Linnaean herbarium at LINN is preserved the sheet Herb. Linn. No. 262.2 ( LINN) (image available at http://linnean-online.org/2723/). The sheet belongs to the Scopoli’s collection and bears a fragment well preserved, and on the base of the specimen is annotated “ infectoria ” handwritten by Linnaeus. However, in our opinion this material is not identifiable with the current concept of Rhamnus infectoria , and the specimen belongs to Rh. saxatilis ( J. Pizarro, pers. comm. in lit., 2016), and therefore it is not suitable to serve as the lectotype. We have been unable to locate any further original material in any Linnaean or Linnaean-linked herbaria.

In conclusion, among the original elements, the illustrations of Clusius (1601: 111) and Bauhin & Cherler (1651: 58) are unrecognizable with the name Rhamnus infectoria and therefore are not suitable for the lectotype; the specimen at LINN is not identifiable as Rhamnus infectoria and obviously does not represent the current use of the name, and the sheets at UPS-BURSER and S-LINN are identifiable as Linnaeus’s Rhmanus infectoria and are in agreement with the Linnaean diagnosis. In summary, from all these elements and in the interest of maintaining nomenclatural stability, we designate the specimen at the right of the sheet at Burser XXV: 9 ( UPS) as lectotype of Rhmanus infectoria and validate the type-designation of Rivas-Martinez & Pizarro (2011), because this specimen is the more informative element of the original material. It represents the traditional concept (e.g. Linnaeus 1767a) and current use of the name Rhmanus infectoria (e.g., Rivas-Martínez 1963, Tutin 1968, Ceballos et al. 1971, López González 2001, Ruiz de la Torre 2006, Rivas-Martínez & Pizarro 2011, 2013).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Rhamnus infectoria L.; Herb. Burser XXV: 9 (UPS), the lectotype is the specimen at the right of the sheet, the specimen with fruits, preserved in the Burser’s Herbarium in Uppsala, UPS.—Photography by courtesy of the Herbarium UPS, reproduced with permission.