Santolina chamaecyparissus

Rivero-Guerra, Aixa O., 2013, Evaluation of Linnaeus’ concept of Santolina rosmarinifolia L. (Asteraceae, Anthemideae) and its interpretation, Adansonia (3) 35 (1), pp. 87-105 : 96-98

S. chamaecyparissus L. subsp. viridis Rouy var. β subintegrifolia Rouy

Flore de France 8: 224 (1903). — S. rosmarinifolia L. var. viridis (Willd.) Guinea, Anales Instituto Botánico de Cavanilles 22: 39 (1970) “ comb. illegit. c.f. Art. 52 of the ICBN, McNeill et al. 2012 ”. — Type (as given in the protologue): “ Alpes-Maritimes: bords des champs à Menton (Hanry in H. R., sub S. rosmarinifolia ) – Souvent cultivé et échappé de jardins ”. — Lecto-, (designated here): “Bords des champs à Menton (Alpes-Marit), VI.1879, Hanry ” (LY-ROUY, Fig. 3 ).

REMARKS

Willdenow (1803), in the protologue of S. viridis , cited S. virens Mill. as its synonym. Therefore, S. viridis Willd. is a superfluous and illegitimate name (c.f. Art. 52 of the ICBN, McNeill et al. 2012). The epithet viridis was combined at subspecies rank under S. chamaecyparissus by Rouy (1903). Santolina chamaecyparissus L. subsp. viridis Rouy ( Rouy 1903) could be legitimate and treated as a nomen novum under Art. 55.2 and 58.1 of the ICBN ( McNeill et al. 2012). The correct author citation for S. chamaecyparissus L. subsp. viridis published by Rouy (1903) by reference to S. viridis “Willd. ” is therefore “Rouy”, not “(Willd.) Rouy”.

The “ Alpes-Maritimes ” are not the natural habitat of S. rosmarinifolia . Rouy used a cultivated plant to describe this name. The lectotype (LY-Rouy) is a single sample showing a woody branch bearing four flowering stems with mature heads, four immature flowering stems and two vegetative stems. It is labelled by Hanry as “ S. rosmarinifolia ”. The sheet has two stamps: “ HERBIER ROUY [in the right-hand margin, above the label]” and “ LY [to the left of the label]”. One other sheet from the type locality “Menton. Frontière d’Italie et de France. L. Chevallier, Précigné”, without collection data, is conserved in P. These specimens have the characteristics listed in the protologue: “ Feuilles entières ou lâchement denticulées; calathides plus grandes (15-17 mill. de diam.) ” .

Guinea (1970) reduced S. viridis Willd. to a variety of S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia , based on plants from Placencia, characterised by “ caulibus sat elongatis, erectis, leviter striatis, glabris; involucris glabris ”. As previously explained, S. viridis is a superfluous and illegitimate name. The combination S. rosmarinifolia L. var. viridis published by Guinea (1970) is also illegitimate because the author cited Willdenow, not Rouy, as author of the epithet “ viridis ”.

Three specimens (G, two specimens with the number 2538 and the other without a number) from Hauts de la Rivière de la Vallée de Gerte près Placencia are labelled by Guinea as Santolina ( viridis ) virens Miller. Two of them fully match S. rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia , whereas the other is S. x oblongifolia .

Figures

FIG. 3. — Lectotype of S. chamaecyparissus L. subsp. viridis Rouy var. β subintegrifolia Rouy (LY-ROUY).