Colchicum falcifolium Stapf (1885: 19)

Boltenkov, Eugeny V. & Govaerts, Rafaël, 2017, Typification of names and nomenclatural notes on juno irises (Iridaceae) from Western Asia, Western Europe, and North Africa, Phytotaxa 303 (2), pp. 125-140 : 126-127

1. Colchicum falcifolium Stapf (1885: 19) , syn. nov.

= Iris caucasica Marschall von Bieberstein (1808: 33)

Protologue citation:—“Ad Mandjil [Manjil] (26 April)”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— IRAN. [Gilan Province], Colchicum Weg nach Manschil, K. S. St., [fr.], 26 April 1882, [Polak] s.n. ( WU 00065153).

Notes:—According to the protologue, the plants were collected by J. Polak in 1882 during a botanical expedition in northern Iran. The Viennese botanist O. Stapf published the results of this expedition (1885) and described the name Colchicum falcifolium . The lectotype specimen, in addition to the above-cited field label handwritten by Polak, is accompanied by three labels with the printed note “Botanischer Museum der k. k. Universitaet Wien”. One of these labels duplicates the content of Polak’s label (“ Colchicum falcifolium Stapf. Ad Manschil, K. S. St. , 26 April [18]82, Polak s.n. ”); the second label has a note handwritten by Stapf “ Iris caucasica Hoffm. ?”; on the third label, there is a handwriting as follows: “Sicher eine Iris wegen der loculiciden Kapsel! Kronfuss”. The plants were collected at the fruiting stage, and the morphological features of the flower organs in Colchicum falcifolium are not indicated in the protologue. Wendelbo & Mathew (1975: 52) referred similar plants from northern Iran to as Iris pseudocaucasica Grossheim (1916: 11) . A study of the herbarium specimens of I. caucasica from various parts of the Caucasus and adjacent territories showed that plants similar to the Colchicum falcifolium specimen occur frequently. Actually, Stapf re-described other species, Iris caucasica Marschall von Bieberstein (1808: 33) , under this name and erroneously referred the plants to the genus Colchicum Linnaeus (1753: 341) . It is possible that only one specimen ever existed, in which case this would be the holotype but, as we cannot be certain about this because there is no definite indication in the protologue, we select the specimen as lectotype.

2. Iris alata Poiret (1789: 86)

≡ I. microptera Lamarck (1791: 120) , nom. illeg. superfl. ≡ Thelysia alata (Poir.) Parlatore (1860: 317) ≡ Coresantha alata (Poir.) Klatt (1866: 575) ≡ Xiphion alatum (Poir.) Baker (1871: 108) ≡ Juno alata (Poir.) Rodionenko (1961: 209)

= Iris planifolia ( Miller 1768: without pagination) Durand & Schinz (1894: 143)

Protologue citation:—“J’ai trouvé cette plante en fleurs dans le mois de novembre aux environs de Bonne & à Hyppone”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— ALGERIA. [Label 1]: Iris alata ; voy. en Barbarie; imberbis, foliis ensiformibus, tubo longo filiformi, petalis interioribus minimis, [fl.], s.d., [Poiret] s.n.; [Label 2]: Iris scorpioides Desf. Fl. Atl. , ex Numidia ( P02164989 ) .

Notes:— Iris alata was described by Poiret (1789) from plants collected during his botanical expedition to Algeria from 1785 to 1786. The specimen from Poiret’s herbarium is designated here as lectotype. The lectotype specimen is accompanied by a label with the printed note “Herb. Poiret in Herb. Moquin-Tandon”. One of the labels contains a handwritten note with a Latin description, which clearly conforms to the information provided in the protologue of I. alata . This name is a taxonomic synonym for Iris planifolia (Mill.) T.Durand & Schinz , which was lectotypified by Crespo (2012: 54).

3. Iris atropatana Grossheim (1936: 252)

≡ Juno atropatana (Grossh.) Czerepanov (1981: 264) ≡ Iris caucasica var. atropatana (Grossh.) , Bolt., comb. & stat. nov.

Protologue citation:—“Hab. in resp. Nachitshevan in regione montana inferiore in declivibus siccis lapidosis et in Turciae distr. Olty et Kaghyzman”.

Type (neotype, designated here):— TURKEY. Kars Province, Kagizman, clayey rocky slope to river, [fl.], 30 April 1914, S. Turkevicz 60 [originally in Russian] ( LE 01009791!, isoneotype LE 01009792!).

Notes:— Iris atropatana was described by Grossheim (1936) from southern Transcaucasia (Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan) and north-eastern Turkey (Erzurum and Kars Provinces). Earlier, it had been reported that the place of deposition of the original I. atropatana material was unknown ( Gabrieljan 2001: 144, Mikheev 2006: 105). The attempts to find the original material for this name in the framework of this study have also failed. The specimen designated here as neotype of I. atropatana was collected in north-eastern Turkey. The neotype and isoneotype specimens are accompanied by the labels, on which A. Grossheim handwrote as follows: “ I. atropatana A. Grossh. November 1947 ”. Both specimens also have labels with handwritings made by S. Juzepczuk (“ I. caucasica , 1919”), G. Rodionenko (“ Juno atropatana (A. Grossh.) Rodion. , 26 March 1962 ”), and E. Gabrieljan (“ Iris caucasica Hoffm. 18 June 2001 ”). As indicated in the protologue, I. atropatana is closely allied to I. caucasica , but it is distinguished by the brighter perianth coloured yellow or grey-yellow (in I. caucasica , the perianth is pale yellow or bluish). The difference consists in the shape of the outer perianth segments which in I. atropatana show a narrowed portion (a sinus) between the blade and the haft. This, however, is a variable feature in I. caucasica , and I. atropatana also seems to fit well the range of variability of the former species ( Mathew 1989: 143). Grossheim (1936: 253) specified that in Nakhchivan I. atropatana grows in dry rocky areas of the lower mountain belt, whereas I. caucasica occurs in the upper mountain belt. It is important to note that the differences in their habitats are not significant. Later, Grossheim (1950: 4) pointed out that I. caucasica grows in dry rocky areas of the lower mountain belt. A study of herbarium specimens of I. caucasica from various parts of the species range has shown that its morphological features and those mentioned in the original description of I. atropatana are similar, as was noted by other authors also ( Wendelbo & Mathew 1975: 51, Mathew 1989: 143). The results of molecular studies ( Ikinci et al. 2011, Mavrodiev et al. 2014) have shown that I. atropatana and I. caucasica form a subclade with other species, but the phylogenetic relationships between taxa within this subclade have remained unresolved. Accordingly, we consider that I. atropatana as a variety of I. caucasica .

4. Iris bolleana Siehe (1901: 313)

≡ I. persica var. bolleana (Siehe) Dykes (1912: 190)

Protologue citation:—“ Asia Minor … on low limestone hills in the neighbourhood of the sea, at a height of from 650 to 950 feet ”.

Type (neotype, designated here):— TURKEY. [Mersin Province], Untere Region d. Cilic[ian] Taurus auf jüngerem weissem, mürbem, tertiärem Kalk, Mersina, [fl.], s.d., W. Siehe s.n. ( LE 00014027!, isoneotypes BM 01191244!, E 00332994!, JE 00022399, LE 00014028!).

Notes:— Iris bolleana was described by Siehe (1901) from southern Turkey without indication of the collection locality. Siehe referred I. bolleana to a group of species, very closely related to I. persica , that he had found in Asia Minor in the late 19 th century. A characteristic feature of I. bolleana is plain yellow flowers, not veined, with a bright violet blotch on the blade of the outer perianth segments. Specimens of the exsiccatum, published by Siehe and identified by him as I. bolleana , were found at LE, BM, E, and JE. The plants were collected from a limestone area on the Mediterranean coast of southern Turkey in the neighbourhood of Mersin. All the above mentioned specimens are accompanied by a label with the printed notes “Flora Orientalis” and “Ed. W. Siehe, Mersina ” without any date and number. The specimens include the plants collected at the stage of flowering and fruiting. According to Hayek (1914: 180), this exsiccatum was under the number 31 in a separate list compiled by Siehe. These specimens might be original material, however this cannot be confirmed with any certainty. Therefore, we designate the LE flowering specimen as a neotype rather than lectotype.