Iris orientalis Miller (1768

Boltenkov, Eugeny V. & Güner, Adil, 2021, Nomenclatural remarks on Iris orientalis (Iridaceae) and four related names including the Linnaean I. ochroleuca, Phytotaxa 512 (3), pp. 205-212 : 207-209

Iris orientalis Miller (1768 : without pagination) ≡ Chamaeiris orientalis (Mill.) Crespo (2011: 67) ≡ Xyridion orientalis

(Mill.) Rodionenko (2005: 58)

Protologue citation:—“brought from Carniola, by the Right Rev. Dr. Pocock, Bishop of Ossory, who found the plants growing there

naturally: these were found in the Chelsea garden”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):—[Specimen from a cultivated plant]. [Label 1, handwritten by Miller]: Iris corollis barbatis , germinibus trigonis, foliis ensiformibus longissimis, caule foliis longiore biflor; Miller’s Icones, [fl.], 1757, s. coll. s.n. (BM000832619! [digital image available at https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/ record/4258670]).

Notes:— Iris orientalis was described by the English botanist Philip Miller (1768) based on cultivated plants grown in the Chelsea Physic Garden from seeds collected by Richard Pococke from Carniola, Slovenia. The protologue reports the polynomial Iris corollis barbatis , germinibus trigonis, foliis ensiformibus longissimis caule foliis longiore bifloro and refers to an illustration (“154”), which is hence original material, already used in a previous work published by Miller (1760). We have traced a specimen at BM ( BM 000832619!) accompanied by a label with a printed note saying “Plants from Chelsea Physic Garden sent to the Royal Society in accordance with sir Hans Sloane’s deed of conveyance to the Apothecaries’ Company: 1722–96”. This means that the plant cultivated at the Chelsea Garden during Miller’s curatorship was sent to the Royal Society and subsequently transferred to BM ( Britten 1913). The sheet has an original label, apparently written by Miller’s hand ( Britten 1913, Dandy 1958), containing the same polynomial reported in the protologue, the date 1757, and “Miller’s Icons” which is a probable reference to Miller’s illustrations published later in 1760. In fact, the illustration 154 from this work was published on 28 April 1757, as indicated at the bottom of the page. Furthermore, there is another label on the sheet indicating the numeral “1775” from the Wilmer’s (1757) list of cultivated plants which were sent to the Royal Society. Hence, the specimen BM000832619 can be considered original material of the name I. orientalis and is selected here as the lectotype. That sheet ( BM 000832619) bears a fragment of stem and an envelope with a dissected flower. Despite the polynomial in the protologue of I. orientalis says “barbatis”, i.e. with outer perianth segments (falls) having a beard of hair, the falls shown in Miller’s (1760) illustration and present on the lectotype have no beard. Subsequently, some authors (e.g., Curtis 1788, Martyn 1797, Dykes 1920) corrected Millers misapplication of the polynomial to cultivated beardless plants, which probably were originally collected in Asia Minor and not in Carniola, Slovenia, as instead reported by Miller (1768). Despite the fact that Dykes (1913, 1920) rejects the name I. orientalis because of Millers’ confusion and advocates for the use of the Linnaean name I. ochroleuca , Millers’ name is valid according to the ICN, and it has been used by many authors through times ( Baker 1892, Lynch 1904, Mathew 1984, 1989, Henderson 2002, Bowley 2012, Güner 2012, Konuralp 2013).

= Iris ochroleuca Linnaeus (1771: 175) ≡ I. spuria γ [var.] ochroleuca (L.) Ker Gawler (1808: t. 1131) ≡ I. halophila β

[var.] ochroleuca (L.) Hornemann (1813: 57) ≡ Xiphion ochroleucum (L.) Schrank (1824: 18) ≡ Iris gueldenstaedtiana

var. ochroleuca (L.) Koch (1848: 637) ≡ Xyridion ochroleucum (L.) Klatt (1872: 500) ≡ Iris spuria α [subsp.] ochroleuca

(L.) Dykes (1913: 63)

Protologue citation:—“Habitat in Oriente”.

Type (neotype, designated here):— TURKEY. [İzmir Province], İzmir, Seferihisar, Karakoç Caddesi, Karakoç Kaplıcaları yolu, yol kenarı sulak arazi ve sulama kanalı yanları, 4 rn. [Seferihisar District, on the road to Karakoc hot-springs, along roadside wetlands and irrigation channels, alt. 4 m], 38°04’13”N 26°54’31”E, [fl.], 30 April 2020, H. Yıldırım 8237 [originally in Turkish] ( NGBB009656 ! [ Fig. 2 ]) .

Notes:—The Linnaeus’ protologue (1771) of I. ochroleuca bears a nomen specificum legitimum: “ IRIS corollis imberbibus , germinibus sexangularibus, caule subtereti, foliis ensiformibus striatis ”. The protologue for this name also includes the statement of provenance “ Habitat in Oriente”, the abbreviation “H.U. [Horto Upsaliensis]”, indicating that plants grown at the Uppsala Botanical Garden were used for species description, together with a detailed description and diagnosis. In the Linnaean Herbarium at LINN, there is one sheet (No. 61.10) that bears an annotation written by Linnaeus’s son “ ochroleuca, HU, 1777 ” ( Savage 1945; C. Jarvis, pers. comm.) demonstrating that this specimen is not original material for the name I. ochroleuca . Furthermore, the plant on this sheet is identified as I. pseudacorus Linnaeus (1753: 38) , as suggested by Baker (1876, 1892) and Dykes (1913) and confirmed in the present study. No synonyms or illustrations were provided in the protologue. We could not find any further original material in any of other herbaria known hosting Linnaean specimens (see also Jarvis 2007). Therefore, we select a recent and informative specimen at NGBB ( Fig. 2 ) as neotype for the name I. ochroleuca . This sheet bears a plant with a stem (nearly terete), basal leaves (ensiform, striate), cauline leaves (five, upright, prominently veined, half as narrow as those of I. germanica Linnaeus (1753: 38)) , bracts (three-flowered, lanceolate, acuminate), an ovary (oblong, grooved, hexagonal), a perianth without beard, outer perianth segments (spathulate, with dark veins on the haft), and inner perianth segments (oblong, white, with yellow veins at base). These traits mostly match those of the protologue given by Linnaeus. The height of the flowering stem does not perfectly match that reported in the protologue, i.e. “ caulis pedalis [a foot high]”, because of the variability of this character. The neotype is also consistent with the traditional concept of I. orientalis , and is clearly referable to this systematic unit ( Martyn 1797, Ker Gawler 1808, Baker 1876, 1892, Dykes 1913, 1920, Mathew 1984, 1989, Rodionenko 2005, Crespo 2011, Bowley 2012). The name described by Miller holds priority over that by Linnaeus, according to Art. 11.3 of the ICN.

= Iris monnieri Redouté (1808 : t. 236) ≡ Xiphion monnieri (Redouté) Alefeld (1863: 297) ≡ Xyridion monnieri

(Redouté) Klatt (1872: 30) ≡ Iris spuria β [subsp.] monnieri (Redouté) Dykes (1913: 64) ≡ Chamaeiris monnieri

(Redouté) Crespo (2011: 67)

Protologue citation:—[ORIGINATED FROM CULTIVATED PLANTS].

Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Iris monnieri . Iris de Lemonnier ” in Redouté, Liliac. 4: t. 236 [the colour illustration], (1808).

Notes:— Iris monnieri was first published in the work of Pierre-Joseph Redouté (1808) based on plants cultivated in France. According to the protologue, similar plants were cultivated for a long time under the name “ Iris of Rhodes” at the garden of Louis-Guillaume Le Monnier, at Versailles, in the 18th century and are assumed to be native to Greece. Stafleu & Cowan (1983) suggested that the text in the Redouté’s work (1808) had been written by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle; therefore, the authorship of I. monnieri has been generally attributed to De Candolle ( Baker 1876, 1892, Rodionenko 1961, Mathew 1989, Crespo 2011, Bowley 2012, Güner 2012). However, there is no internal evidence for De Candolle’s authorship, which should be instead attributed to Redouté in accordance with Art. 46.8 of the ICN. The colour illustration accompanying the protologue is selected here as the lectotype for I. monnieri . The description of this name indicates that I. monnieri has the same size of I. orientalis , but flowers are entirely lemon-yellow. Plants treated as either I. monnieri or I. orientalis are also reported to have a chromosome number 2 n = 40 ( Lenz & Day 1963). In early works ( Steudel 1821, Ker Gawler 1827), I. monnieri was considered a synonym of I. ochroleuca , or very close to I. orientalis ( Spach 1846, Baker 1892). Dykes (1913) noted that probably it was not a good species, since seeds produced seedlings which were mostly similar to I. orientalis (under I. ochroleuca ). In addition, I. monnieri was considered a natural hybrid between a white-flowered I. orientalis (under I. ochroleuca ) and one of the deep yellowflowering irises found near Ankara, Turkey ( Lenz & Day 1963) and later ascribed to I. xanthospuria Mathew & Baytop (1982: 446) . We believe that these yellow-flowering plants from Ankara do not belong to I. xanthospuria , which in Turkey is confined to the Mediterranean region only. Güner (2012) suggested that I. monnieri and I. orientalis are synonyms. For instance, the population of I. orientalis from Bodrum-Milas in southwestern Turkey hosts individuals with both white and lemon-yellow flowers (S. Yüzer, pers. comm.), and one individual of I. orientalis with white flowers gave offspring with fully lemon-coloured flowers in the Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanic Garden (A. Güner, personal observation). This might also have happened in the gardens of Versailles in the past. We hence support the synonymy of I. monnieri with I. orientalis . As a final remark, we did not trace herbarium specimens collected on Rhodes Island.

= Iris gigantea Carriére (1875: 357) ≡ I. orientalis var. gigantea (Carriére) Lynch (1904: 85)

Protologue citation:—“probablement originaire de l’Asie centrale”.

Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Iris gigantea ” in Carriére, Rev. Hort. 47: f. 59, (1875).

Notes:— Iris gigantea was described by the French horticulturist Élie-Abel Carriére (1875) based on plants cultivated in Vienna under the name “ Iris de Pomeranie ”. According to Stafleu & Cowan (1976), Carriére’s herbarium and types are unknown, and we did not found any specimen of I. gigantea at P. The protologue is accompanied by an illustration which is designated here as the lectotype. The name I. gigantea is generally considered a synonym of I. orientalis ( Baker 1876, Foster 1883, Peckham 1939, Güner 2012).

= Iris albida Davidov (1915: 117) Protologue citation:—“In aquis et paludosis circa urbem Dede-Aghač”. Type (lectotype or perhaps holotype, designated here):— GREECE. Iris albida Dav. Travaux soc. bulg. scienc. vol. VIII (1915) p. 117–118

(Typus) Tracia occidentum, in uliginosis ad urbem Dede-Aghac [Dedeağaç], [fl.], 18 May 1914, B. Davidoff s.n. ( SOM No. 14079

[ Fig. 3]).

Notes:— Iris albida was described by the Bulgarian botanist Bozimir Davidov (1915) based on plants collected by him in western Thracia, now belonging to Greece. We found a specimen considered to be original material of the name at SOM ( Fig. 3), where the Davidov’s collection is deposited ( Thiers 2021). It was collected by Davidov near Alexandroupoli (formerly known as Dedeağaç). This specimen is designated here as the lectotype for I. albida , since no evidence exists that it is the only specimen from which the description was made. It bears the original annotation and is marked as “Type”, and perfectly matches the protologue. Iris albida is considered as a synonym of I. orientalis ( Mathew 1989, Bowley 2012, Güner 2012), which is also confirmed by the original material in the present study.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Neotype of Iris ochroleuca (NGBB009656).