Iris schischkinii Grossheim (1950: 3)

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 : 133-137

18. Iris schischkinii Grossheim (1950: 3) , syn. nov.

≡ Juno schischkinii (Grossh.) Czerepanov (1981: 265)

= Iris caucasica var. multiflora Grossh.

Protologue citation:—“Prope lacum Batabad supra pagum Bitschenach [Bichenek Village] reipublicae Nachitschevanicae ca. 2100 m, in pratis lapidosis, 26 May 1947, fl., A. Grossheim, I. Iljinskaja & M. Kirpicznikov”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— AZERBAIJAN. [Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic], Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan ASSR, Shahbuz Rayon, near Batabat Marshes, on rocky slopes, 2100 m, [fl.], 26 May 1947, [fl.], A. A. Grossheim, I. A. Il’inskaya & M. I. Kirpichnikov s.n. [originally in Russian] ( LE 01010452!, E 00373759! [foto seen], isolectotypes LE 01010453– LE 01010458!).

Notes:— Iris schischkinii was described by Grossheim (1950) based on plants collected near the mountain lake Batabad, Shahbuz Rayon of Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan. A single gathering was indicated by the author as a basis of this name with the word “Typus” and the note that the original material was deposited in “Herb. Inst. Bot. nom. V. L. Komarovii Ac. Sc. USSR in Leningrad conservatur [ LE]”. This gathering in the LE collection consists of seven specimens, which are syntypes (Art. 40 Note 1 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). All the specimens are accompanied by a printed label with the note “Herbarium Instituti botanici nom. V. L. Komarovii Ac. Sc. URSS. Nakhchivan Floristic Expedition 1947 [in Russian]”. The name “ Iris schischkinii ” was handwritten by Grossheim in December 1947 on all the labels. On some of specimens ( LE 01010452– LE 01010454), separate flower organs are represented in addition to whole plants. Grossheim (1950: 4) noted that I. caucasica grows on dry soils in submountain and mid-mountain areas, whereas I. schischkinii occurs on meadows and among bushes on subalpine slopes. I. caucasica var. multiflora grows in habitats similar to those of I. schischkinii . As was noted earlier, I. schischkinii does not deserve to be placed in a separate species and almost does not differ from I. caucasica ( Karjagin 1952, Kamelin 1973, Mikheev 2006). The distinctive traits (the size of perianth segments and the shape of outer perianth segments), specified by Grossheim (1950: 4) for I. schischkinii , are variable and characteristic of I. caucasica . Such features as large stem with developed internodes and multiflorous habit are taxonomical for I. caucasica var. multiflora . Accordingly, we reduce I. schischkinii to a synonym of I. caucasica var. multiflora .

19. Iris scorpioides Desfontaines (1798: 40) ≡ Thelysia grandiflora Salisbury (1812: 303) , nom. illeg. superfl. ≡ Juno scorpioides (Desf.) Trattinnick (1821: 135) ≡ Costia scorpioides

(Desf.) Willkomm (1860: 132) ≡ Neubeckia scorpioides (Desf.) Alefeld (1863: 297) ≡ Thelysia scorpioides (Desf.) Mattei (1915:

98) = Iris planifolia (Mill.) T.Durand & Schinz

Protologue citation:—“ Algeria ”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Iris scorpioides ” in Desfontaines, Fl. Atlant. 1: t. 6 (1798).

20. Iris sindjarensis Boiss. & Hausskn. in Boissier (1882: 122), syn. nov.

≡ Juno sindjarensis (Boiss. & Hausskn.) Kamelin (1973: 252)

= Iris aucheri var. fumosa (Decne.) Bolt.

Protologue citation:—“Hab. in desertis Mesopotamiae ad radices montium Sindjar et Gebel Taktak (Haussk.)”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— TURKEY. [Şanlıurfa Province], Iris sp. n., in deserto Wiran Scher, [fl.], May 1867, C. Haussknecht 904 ( K 01045945!).

Isolectotypes:— Iris fumosa affin. fl. coerul. In deserto ad ped. Dschebel Taktak, Wiran Scheher, [fl.], May [18]67, Haussknecht 904 ( JE 00020032); Iris sindjarensis Boiss. & Hausskn. It. Orient, Desertum Djebel Taktak, 1867, Haussknecht 904 ( JE 00020033); Iris sp. n. fumosa aff., in deserto Wiran Scher [Viranşehir], [fl.], May 1867, C. Haussknecht 904 ( P 02158472).

Syntype:— IRAQ. [Nineveh Governorate], I. sindjarensis B. & Hausskn. In deserto inter fl. Dschadschsdschach et Sindschar, [fr.], May [18]67, Haussknecht 905 ( JE 00020034, K 01045946!).

Notes:— Iris sindjarensis was described by Boissier & Haussknecht (1882) based on plants collected by H. C. Haussknecht near Sinjar, north-western Iraq, and near Viranşehir, south-eastern Turkey, in 1867. The specimen, designated here as the lectotype, is accompanied by a label with the printed note “Professor C. Haussknecht. Iter orientale” ; the information on the label was handwritten by H. C. Haussknecht. Iris sindjarensis has pale blue flowers; it is one of the colour varieties of I. aucheri ( Mathew 1989: 144) .

21. Iris stenophylla Hausskn. ex Baker (1900: 170)

≡ I. persica var. stenophylla (Hausskn. ex Baker) Dykes (1912: 192) ≡ Juno stenophylla (Hausskn. ex Baker) Rodionenko (1994: 105)

≡ Iris heldreichii Mallett (1901: 190) , nom. illeg. superfl. ≡ Juno heldreichii Kamelin (1973: 252) , nom. illeg. superfl. (Art. 51.1 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012)

Protologue citation:—“… was discovered by Siehe in the Cilician Taurus in 1895–6”.

Type (lectotype, designated by Mathew 1984: 408 as “holo.”, corrected here):— TURKEY. [Mersin Province], Iris stenophylla, Cilicien, 1896 , [fl.], W. Siehe s.n. Exs. No. 2 ( K 00499021!, isolectotypes E 00333008!, JE 00020065, WU 00038638).

Other original material examined:— TURKEY. [Mersin Province], Iris heldreichi Siehe , stenophylla Hausskn. et Siehe … Cilic. Taurus, Obere Waldregion … January [1896], [fl., fr.], [Siehe] s.n. ( BM 00832607!, E 00333007!, LE 00014029!).

Notes:— Iris stenophylla was described by Baker (1900), from material collected by Siehe in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains, southern Turkey, in late January 1896. Siehe sent some of his specimens to H. C. Haussknecht, and they were given the name “ I. stenophylla ”. Mathew (1984: 408) indicated that the holotype was kept at K. According to the Art. 9.9 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), the term “ holotype ”, used by Mathew (1984: 408), should be corrected to “ lectotype ”. One part of the above-mentioned specimens (lectotype and isolectotypes) refers to the exsiccatum which was probably published by Haussknecht, based on Siehe’s gathering. The specimens of this exsiccatum are accompanied by a label with the printed note “ W. Siehe’s botanische Reise nach Cilicien 1895/96”. On each of these labels, two names are indicated: I. heldreichii and I. stenophylla . On the labels of isolectotypes, the locality is cited more in detail: “ Iris stenophylla Hausskn. n. sp. Gysel Dere, Kalkabhänge, 400 m, January 1896, W. Siehe s.n. Exs. No. 2”. The lectotype specimen contains a label with the handwriting made by W. R. Dykes: “ I. persica L., var.”. The other part of the original material of I. stenophylla was placed to Siehe’s exsiccatum, specimens of which are accompanied by labels with the printed notes “Flora Orientalis” and “Ed. W. Siehe, Mersina ”. According to Baytop (2010: 201), Siehe sold his specimens to European herbaria. Iris stenophylla was also called as I. heldreichii ( Baker 1900) . Siehe collected wild bulbs and exported them to European nurseries under the name I. heldreichii ( Hooker 1900) . The name I. heldreichii ( Mallett 1901) is nomenclaturally superfluous and thus illegitimate (Art. 52.1 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Dykes (1912) considered I. stenophylla to be conspecific with I. persica and reduced it to the varietal rank. It can be distinguished from I. persica by a paler colour of ground flower. However, this assumption, which is provisionally accepted here, contradicts the results of the molecular analysis ( Ikinci et al. 2011, Mavrodiev et al. 2014). Further studies are needed to establish the systematic values of this taxon.

22. Iris tauri Siehe ex Mallett (1901: 190)

≡ I. persica var. tauri (Siehe ex Mallett) Dykes (1912: 192) ≡ Juno tauri (Siehe ex Mallett) Kamelin (1973: 252)

Protologue citation:—[ORIGIN NOT SPECIFIED].

Type (neotype, designated here):— TURKEY. [Mersin Province], Cilic. Taurus, 1600–2000 m, [fl.], 1898, W. Siehe s.n. ( JE 00020059, isolectotypes BM 00832604!, LE 00014025!, LE 00014026!).

Notes:— Iris tauri was described by Mallett (1901) without indicating the collection locality. Plants and bulbs of I. tauri were collected in 1898 by W. Siehe from the eastern Taurus Mountains in Cilicia, south-central Turkey ( Siehe 1901: 313), possibly near Mersin ( Lynch 1904b: 183). The specimen from Siehe’s exsiccatum, which is represented by plants at the flowering stage, was designated as neotype. On the printed labels to this exsiccatum, it was indicated as follows: “Flora Orientalis; Ed. W. Siehe, Mersina ”. The specimens, deposited at LE, are plants at the stages of flowering and fruiting. According to Hayek (1914: 180), this exsiccatum was listed under the number 29 in a separate list compiled by W. Siehe. Hooker (1901) noted that I. tauri had been received at Kew from Siehe in 1900 in a batch of bulbs of I. stenophylla . Mallett (1901: 190) suggested that I. tauri is nearly an ally to I. stenophylla but has a much darker colour of the flower organs. Mathew (1989: 168, 2012: 266) regarded I. tauri as a taxonomic synonym of I. stenophylla . In our opinion, I. tauri is one of the numerous varieties of I. persica in flower colour, as was noted by Dykes (1912: 192).

23. Iris transtagana Brotero (1804: 52)

= Iris planifolia (Mill.) T.Durand & Schinz

Protologue citation:—“Prope Elvas et Eboram in argillosis”.

Type (neotype, designated here):— PORTUGAL. [Portalegre District], Elvas, dans les pentes calcaires aux environs de la Station d’amélioration des plantes, [fl.], 15 February 1971, J. A. Guerra et al. 8598. Exs. No. 6339 ( P 01672492, isoneotype P 01840348).

Notes:— Iris transtagana was described by Brotero (1804) from the Alentejo region (Portalegre District and Évora District), south-eastern Portugal. No collection or illustration was cited in the prologue.According to Stafleu & Cowan (1976: 357), Brotero’s types are kept at LISU, and some of the material is in Bernhardi’s herbarium at MO. As Ana Isabel D. Correia ( LISU) reported, most of Brotero’s herbarium for Flora Lusitanica had disappeared, and the original material of I. transtagana was not found. There is no specimen with this name at MO, and, therefore, it is necessary to designate a neotype. The exsiccatum published by P. Auquier is designated here as neotype. The plants of this exsiccatum were collected on the territory of Elvas, the Portuguese municipality. This is the area, from which I. transtagana was described by Brotero.

24. Iris trialata Brotero (1827: 44)

≡ I. alata var. trialata (Brot.) Nyman (1882: 703)

= Iris planifolia (Mill.) T.Durand & Schinz

Protologue citation:—[ PORTUGAL] “… in rupibus circa Elvas, Eboram, et in collium radicibus non procul ab Anâ flumine sitis”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Iris trialata ” in Brotero, Phytogr. Lusitan. Select. 2: t. 95 (1827).

25. Thelysia alata var. micrantha Battandier (1889 : CCXXIV)

≡ Iris alata f. parviflora Batt. in Battandier & Trabut (1895: 42) ≡ Iris planifolia var. micrantha (Batt.) Maire (1959: 154)

Protologue citation:—“Aflou (Clary)”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— ALGERIA. [Laghouat Province], Iris scorpioides Desf., Chemin du Dj [ebel] Gourou, [fl.], 26 January [18]88, Clary 3 [Label handwritten with the later inscription “ O. Aflou. Clary”] ( MPU 00007912).

Notes:— Thelysia alata var. micrantha was described by Battandier (1889) based on plants collected by J. B. E. Clary near Aflou, central Algeria. The specimen, designated here as lectotype, belongs to Battandier’s herbarium; it was collected on the road to Djebel Gourou. Subsequently, the author proposed a different combination for this variety, as a form in I. planifolia ( Battandier & Trabut 1895: 42) . The characteristic feature of this variety is small flowers.

26. Thelysia fumosa Decaisne (1873: 304)

≡ Iris fumosa (Decne.) Boiss. & Hausskn. in Boissier (1882: 123) ≡ Juno fumosa (Decne.) Kamelin (1973: 252) ≡ Iris aucheri var. fumosa (Decne.) Bolt. , comb. nov.

Protologue citation:—“ Syria (Aucher, no. 2137); Djebel Muhasjan circa Alepum alt. 1300’, et in deserto Wiran Scher (Haussknecht, no. 907)”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— SYRIA. [Aleppo Governorate], Iris fumosa sp. nova!, in agris & graminosis Dschebel Muhassan pr. Aleppo (etiam pr. Turmanin), [fl.], 17 March [18]65, C. Haussknecht 404 ( JE00020054 ; isolectotypes JE00020055 , K00499012 !, MW00021790 !, P02158470 , P02158485 ) .

Notes:— Decaisne (1873) listed three gatherings as the original material for Thelysia fumosa . Some of these gatherings were used for description of other taxa. Baker (1871) used one of the gatherings (“Aucher, no. 2137”) as the original material for Xiphion aucheri Baker (1871) . It is likely that Decaisne (1873) committed an inaccuracy when indicating the number of the gathering “in deserto Wiran Scher [Viranşehir] (Haussknecht, no. 907)”. Later on, Iris sindjarensis ( Boissier 1882) was described based on the specimens collected in Viranşehir (“ C. Haussknecht 904 ”). One of the elements of the original material, collected by H. C. Haussknecht in northern Syria, is designated here as lectotype of Thelysia fumosa . The colour of flowers is indicated on the labels to the lectotype and one of the isolectotypes ( JE 00020055), handwritten by H. C. Haussknecht (“Flor. albo-vireroentibus”). Other isolectotypes are accompanied by labels with the printed note “ C. Haussknecht. Iter Syriaco-Armeniacum 1865” ( K, P) or “ C. Haussknecht. Iter Orientale 1865” ( MW), and the note indicating the altitude above sea level (“alt. 1300 ped.”).According to the diagnosis ( Decaisne 1873), flowers of Thelysia fumosa are pale blue. Dykes (1912: 196) noted that “the type of I. fumosa seems to have been a specimen of kind with smoky, yellowish flowers”, and this species is a colour variety of I. sindjarensis . Both of these names are taxonomic synonyms of I. aucheri , which colour of flowers is highly variable ( Mathew 1989: 144). Iris fumosa is distinguished from I. aucheri by the blue colour. It is thus necessary to make a new combination I. aucheri var. fumosa . The two above names I. nusairiensis and I. sindjarensis also belong to this variety.

27. Xiphion aucheri Baker (1871: 110)

≡ Juno aucheri (Baker) Klatt (1872: 498) ≡ Iris aucheri (Baker) Sealy (1950: 562)

Protologue citation:—“ Syria, Aucher-Eloy, 2137”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— SYRIA. [Label handwritten]: Ir. sp. nova, Syria orient., [fl.], s.d., [Aucher-Eloy] 2137; [Label printed]: Asie ossidentale, M. Aucher-Eloy, 1837 ( K00499011 !, isolectotypes BM00990982 !, BM00990983 !, LE00014032 !, P02158474 , P02158475 ) .

Notes:— Xiphion aucheri was described by Baker (1871) based on plants collected by P. M. R. Aucher-Éloy in eastern Syria without indicating the collection locality. Aucher-Éloy collected and studied plants in the Near East in 1830–1838 for creating the “Herbier d’Orient” ( Baytop 2010: 192). He sold his collections to the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle ( P), from which they were distributed to various herbaria. The specimen K 00499011, accompanied by Bakers’s handwritten “ Xiphion aucheri Baker ” on the sheet, and a label handwritten by Dykes (“ I. sindjarensis Boiss. ”), is designated here as lectotype. The specimens, except for P 02158474 and P 02158475, bear labels with the printed note “Aucher-Eloy Herbire d’Orient No. [2137]”, and therefore they are isolectotypes; some of the specimens bear the note “ Syria Orient.”. Establishing the date and the locality of collection of these plants is difficult. As is indicated in the P 02158474 label, the plants were collected in 1837. However, in March 1837 (during the flowering season of I. aucheri plants), Aucher-Éloy was in north-western Turkey ( Jaubert 1843b: 375). According to Sealy (1950: 562), this species was apparently collected near Aleppo, where Aucher-Éloy was in March 1835 ( Jaubert 1843a: 170). However, Aleppo is situated in north-western Syria, whereas the plants were collected from eastern Syria, and, consequently, this supposition is hard to agree with. The flower colour of I. aucheri is yellow ( Baker 1871).

28. Xiphion palaestinum Baker (1871: 108)

≡ Juno palaestina (Baker) Klatt (1872: 498) ≡ Iris palaestina (Baker) Barbey in Barbey-Boissier & Barbey (1882: 159) ≡ Thelysia palaestina (Baker) Mattei (1915: 99) ≡ Iris planifolia subsp. palaestina (Baker) Bolt. , comb. & stat. nov.

Protologue citation:—“ Palestine; rocks of the valley of Barghoutie, near Saida, Blanche, Herb. Syr. n. 42! Gaillardot! Hebron! Lowne! Plain of Sharon, flowering in January, Miss Osborne”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— LEBANON. [South Governorate], [Label printed]: Iris caucasica M.Bieb. … Rochers de la vallée de Barghoutié, au-dessous du village de Scandérouna, à l’est de Saïda [Sidon], [fl.], 31 January 1853, I. Blanche s.n., Exs. No. 42 ( P 01840451, isolectotypes E 00332975!, K 00499015!, L 01472331, P 01793985, P 01840450, P 01840452, P 01844888).

Syntypes:— SYRIA. Iris caucasica M. B. Syria, Rocheuan und de Kanderein, N. E. d’ Said, [fl.], 30 December 1841, C. Gaillardot s.n. ( K00499013 !) ; ISRAEL. Iris caucasica M. B. Syria, found on the Plain of Sharon , flowers in January 1863, Osborne 169 ( K00499016 !) ; PALESTINE. [Printed part of the label]: Plants of Southern Syria. Collected by B. T. Lowne. 1863-4, [Handwritten part of the label]: Iris caucasica Bieb., Hebron , [fl.], s.n. ( BM01209272 !, CGE00014720 !, K00283318 !) ; same as for previous specimen, 308 ( K00499014 !)

Notes:— Xiphion palaestinum was described by Baker (1871) based on plants collected in Palestine, Middle East. Four gatherings were cited by the author as the original material of this name. The specimen designated here as lectotype belongs to the first exsiccatum cited in the protologue, which is accompanied by a label with the printed note “№ 42. Herbier de Syrie. 1854”. According to the protologue ( Baker 1871: 109), Iris palaestina is closely allied to I. planifolia (Mill.) T.Durand & Schinz , but is distinguished by a smaller size, pale yellow perianth, and the shape of inner perianth segments. In the description of I. palaestina , variable features were used, and the differences between I. palaestina and I. planifolia are in fact very weak ( Dykes 1912: 195). Mathew (2012: 256) suggested that the colour of flowers can be the main feature for distinguishing between these two species, which is nevertheless variable. There are many varieties of I. planifolia , differing mainly in colour and size ( Foster 1892: 83, Lynch 1904b: 186). Flowers of I. palaestina are usually smaller than those of I. planifolia and much more variable in colour: they may be blue, green, or pale yellow ( Dykes 1924: 52). Both species are distinct from all the other members of the Juno group in the morphological characters of pollen grain ( Rodionenko 1961: 209, Mathew 1986: 62). A cytotaxonomic comparison between I. palestina and I. planifolia has shown that their karyotypes (2n = 24) are very similar and clearly indicated their close relationship ( Colasante & Vosa 1981). The results of a molecular analysis also confirm that these species are genetically very similar ( Ikinci et al. 2011, Mavrodiev et al. 2014). Dykes (1912: 195) made a suggestion that I. palaestina is a geographical race of I. planifolia , with which the authors completely agree. Thus, morphology and distribution of I. planifolia subsp. palaestina support the subspecific rank for this taxon.