(3065) Proposal to reject the name Cistus racemosus ( Cistaceae )
2025; Wiley; Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/tax.13306
ISSN1996-8175
Autores Tópico(s)Botanical Research and Chemistry
Resumo(3065) Cistus racemosus L., Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 368; Mant. Pl.: 76. 15–31 Oct 1767 [Angiosp.: Cist.], nom. utique rej. prop. Lectotypus (designated by Ferrer-Gallego in Taxon 70: 433. 2021): Le Monnier in Herb. Linnaeus No. 689.56 (LINN). Cistus racemosus L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 368; Mant. Pl.: 76. 1767) (Cistaceae) is an obscure Linnaean name. It is the older name for a species also named as Cistus violaceus Cav. (Icon. 2: 38, t. 147. 1793), the basionym for Helianthemum violaceum (Cav.) Pers., a binomial currently used for a Mediterranean species. The combination Helianthemum racemosum (L.) Desf. (Tabl. École Bot.: 153. 1804) has seldom been used after its publication (though it does appear in some literature, although not in IPNI [https://www.ipni.org/, accessed 22 Nov 2024]). The species has also been incorrectly treated as H. variabile var. racemosum (L.) Steudel (in Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 736. 1840), H. pilosum var. racemosum (L.) Nyman (in Consp. Fl. Eur.: 74. 1878) or H. strictum var. racemosum (L.) Rouy (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 31: 74. 1884), since Desfontaines's (l.c.) name has priority at species rank over all three. In Google Scholar, searches on "Cistus racemosus", and combinations based on it, returned 47 hits, in most cases used in old works, arbitrarily used and without authorship, or attributed to the isonym "Helianthemum racemosum (L.) Pau" (in Treb. Inst. Catalana Hist. Nat. 2: 202. 1916); "Cistus violaceus", and combinations based on it, returned 218 hits (accessed 22 Nov 2024). On the other hand, it seems that Cistus racemosus represents the same identity and current concept of other plants described by Cavanilles along with C. violaceus, such as C. strictus Cav. (l.c. 3: 32, t. 263, fig. 2. 1795) and C. linearis Cav. (l.c. 3: 8, t. 216. 1795) (see Ferrer-Gallego in Fl. Montiber. 80: 10–17. 2021a). The lectotype of the name Cistus violaceus (see Ferrer-Gallego in Taxon 70: 433. 2021b), as well as the other elements eligible for lectotypification, i.e., the illustration included in the protologue by Cavanilles (l.c. 1793: t. 147) and the specimens at MA (barcode MA 475546) and at RCAXII (herbarium of the Real Colegio Alfonso XII of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Madrid, no. 4442), shows that C. racemosus is conspecific with C. violaceus. The lectotype of C. racemosus is a specimen collected by Louis-Guillaume Le Monnier and preserved in the Linnaean Herbarium at LINN, Herb. Linn. No. 689.56 (LINN [digital image!]) (image available at https://linnean-online.org/6476/) (see Ferrer-Gallego, l.c. 2021a). As Cistus racemosus predates C. violaceus, the Linnaean name has priority. A proposal to conserve C. violaceus against C. racemosus was published by Ferrer-Gallego (l.c. 2021b: 433–435) to preserve the name in use. The proposal was recommended by the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) (votes: 12–5–0) (see Applequist in Taxon 72: 912. 2023). Later, the General Committee (GC) was in favour of this proposal at first vote (22–1–0–4) and recommended the conservation of C. violaceus against C. racemosus. However, subsequently "the GC was informed that there are problems with typification of C. racemosus and this issue may be better resolved by a proposal to reject C. racemosus, so the GC narrowly voted a second time [Keep original vote 11 – Refer back to NCVP 16] to refer this matter back to the NCVP, which will consult with the proposal author" (Wilson in Taxon 73: 1323. 2024). The GC mentioned that "there are problems with typification of C. racemosus". However, what are the problems? Le Monnier's specimen at LINN is clearly Linnaeus's original material used to describe the species (Jarvis, Order out of Chaos: 422. 2007), and there is apparently no evidence to contradict this claim. The sheet No. 689.56 (LINN) was annotated by Linnaeus himself with the epithet "racemosus" at the base of the sheet. Why did the GC not accept the proposal? For Cistus violaceus, Cavanilles (l.c. 1793) provided a diagnosis, an exhaustive description in Latin with an exact type locality, and an exquisite detailed colorized engraving showing the habit of the plant and all the critical characters of the species. Accepting the proposal to conserve C. violaceus against C. racemosus would have saved this new proposal to reject the Linnaean name. However, rejection appears to be the best option to ensure that this name never threatens any other name (regardless of its typification), especially in a group of plants as complex and with as many names proposed throughout history as the genus Helianthemum. In this sense, and if the name is not rejected, if at some point it is demonstrated that the specimen LINN 689.56 is not original material, the name could be typified on the illustration of Barrelier (Pl. Gall. Hisp. Ital. Observ.: 52, fig. 293. 1714; "Cistus lavandulae folio thyrsoidis") cited by Linnaeus in the protologue. This illustration was identified by Font Quer (in Treb. Inst. Bot. Barcelona 12: 74. 1988) as H. lavandulifolium (Lam.) DC. (Fl. Franç. 4: 820. 1805, non Mill., Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Helianthemum no. 3. 1768), now H. syriacum (Jacq.) Dum. Cours. (Bot. Cult. 3: 129. 1802); consequently, Linnaeus's name in this case could threaten Cistus syriacus Jacq. (Icon. Pl. Rar. 1(3): 10. 1783), a name widely used in the genus Helianthemum for a plant very common throughout the Mediterranean. However, Jacquin's conception of this name fits much better with Barrelier's "Cistus lavandulae latifoliae folio" (l.c.: fig. 288), as was indicated by Candolle (l.c.) and Rouy (in Rev. Sci. Nat. Montpellier, sér. 3, 3: 76. 1883). As in many cases, the unambiguous interpretation of Barrelier's illustration (see Ferrer-Gallego, l.c. 2021b: 434) with any name would require an epitype (because it cannot be critically identified for the purposes of the precise application of the name) that could also continue to threaten some other currently accepted name. Undoubtedly, the best option is the rejection of C. racemosus. Consequently, accepting this proposal to reject the obscure Linnaean name Cistus racemosus under Art. 56 of the ICN will preserve the stability and clarity of the nomenclature of this group of species. Rejection of this proposal would have an undesirable consequence because as both names are currently typified, the name C. violaceus would be included as a heterotypic synonym of the unknown and ignored Linnaean name C. racemosus, and therefore the well-known name Helianthemum violaceum, used in a large number of works, would need to be replaced by H. racemosum (L.) Desf., a name little known and used. Thanks to Dr. John Wiersema for his valuable advice and for reviewing the manuscript and making improvements.
Referência(s)