Linaria amoi Campo ex Amo y Mora (1855: 56)

Vizoso, M. Teresa & Quesada, Carmen, 2018, Nomenclatural types of names published by Amo y Mora, Phytotaxa 356 (4), pp. 276-284 : 280

Linaria amoi Campo ex Amo y Mora (1855: 56) ≡ L. melanantha var. amoi (Campo ex Amo) Nyman (1881: 539) ≡

L. tristis var. amoi (Campo ex Amo) Pau (1922: 60)

Protologue citation:—“Hab. in arenosis calcareis et siccis regionis montanae Sierra Tejeda et Almijara , ubi legit eam D. Petrus del Campo die 12 julii anni 1854 cum praecedenti.”

Holotype (designated as “ lectotype ” by Negrillo Galindo & Marín Calderón 1985: 388, corrected here):— SPAIN. Granada, Sierra Tejeda et Almijara , in arenosis calcareis et siccis regionis montana superioris et alpina inferioris. 12 July 1854, Campo s.n. ( GDA62625 !).

Note:— Negrillo Galindo & Marín Calderón (1985b) selected as lectotype the fragment of the left lower part of the sheet. This is included in a folder containing a handwritten note concerning the sending of the specimen to Amo: “Señor don Mariano esto es pan y carne / que bien se esquiribe sentado en siya grande”[sic], and in the lower part “ Linaria Amoi ”. The sheet contains a handwritten label by Campo: “ Linaria Amoi. Campo // In Arenosis Caliareis et Siccis regionis / montanae Superioris et Alpino inferioris / Sierra Tejeda et Almijara. Julii 12.1854 // Campo” as well as a half-size page description of the new taxon handwritten by Amo, and which coincides with the published version. The lectotype designated by the former authors is to be corrected to holotype (Art. 9.9g of the ICN), since all fragments in the sheet do correspond to a single specimen.

In the account of the genus for Flora iberica in Volume 13 (published 15 January 2009), the data related to Amo’s protologue were included, but it does not reflect the typification made by the aforementioned authors in 1985, and therefore we conclude that the type was unknown.

Lotus ciliatus Amo y Mora (1861: 5) , nom. illeg., non Lotus ciliatus Tenore (1813: 16)

= L. conimbricensis Brotero (1800: 59) [Fi]

= L. coimbrensis Willdenow (1802: 1390)

= L. aristatus Candolle (1813a: 122)

= L. glaberrimus Candolle (1813a: 122)

= L. trichocarpus Lagasca (1816: 23)

Protologue citation:—“Crescit ad pedem versuraque collium Granatae propinquorum, praecipue en los de la Alhambra mas allá del Cementerio, locis umbrosis subhumidis. Florebat initio Maii, anno 1854”.

Holotype:— SPAIN. Granada, Cerro del Sol detrás de la Alhambra, 04 May 1852, M. del Amo y Mora s.n. ( GDA62626 !).

Note:—The specimen is included in a folder that shows the handwritten inscription “706 // Lotus ciliatus Amo // Lotus conimbricensis var.?”. The sheet holds 25 attached specimens and a label with the locality and date “Cerro del Sol detrás de la / Alhambra Mayo 4 de / 1852” as well as another label G with the handwritten words “ Lotus conimbri / censis Brot. // Nº 706”. It also contains a half-size page with the handwritten description of Lotus ciliatus (mihi), which corresponds to the published version and expressed his doubts on the validity of the taxon: “será acaso una variedad local del Lotus conimbricensis de Brotero ? esta especie que acabo de describir con la denominación de Lotus ciliatus ?” [Might it be a local variety of Lotus conimbricensis from Brotero? This species I have just described with the name Lotus ciliatus ?]. This is the only sheet at the Amo´s collection upon which the validating description was based (Art. 9.3).