Santolina oblongifolia var. ceratophylla Willk.
Creators: name: Rivero-Guerra, Aixa O.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2012
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Magnoliopsida
Asterales
Asteraceae
Santolina
Santolina oblongifolia
Santolina oblongifolia boiss. var. β ceratophylla willk.

description: 4. <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. var. β <i>ceratophylla</i> Willk. In Willkomm &amp; Lange, <i>Prodromus Florae Hispanicae</i> 2: 82 (1865). — Type (as given in protologue): “In rupestribus regionis montanae Hispanicae centralis, hucusque non nisi in Sierra de Gredos reperta (ad Serranillos, Isern, Cut.!. Puerto del Pico, Bourg.!) ubi utraque forma promiscue crescere videtur. – Julio (v.s.)”. — Lectotype (here designated): Spain, Rochers de la Sierra de Gredos au Puerto del Pico, 8-25.VII.1863, <i>Bourgeau 2540</i> (COI-WILLK 00035989 [Fig. 3]; isolecto-, A 00251664 (specimen to the left), HEID 702282 (specimen to the left), MPU (2 sheets), W (2 sheets, one of them with two specimen; the isolectotype is the specimen to the left]). REMARKS These names were published by Willkomm <i>in</i> Willkomm &amp; Lange (1865) as <i>S. oblongifolia α obtusifolia</i> and <i>S. oblongifolia β ceratophylla</i>. The author did not mentioned the rank of “ <i>α</i> ” and “ <i>β</i> ” in the introductory chapter of <i>Prodromus Florae Hispanicae</i>. However, Willkomm (Willkomm &amp; Lange 1865: 81) cited “ <i>S. var. vulgaris S. rosmarinifoliae</i> ”, indicating the rank of <i>S. rosmarinifolia</i> L. <i>α vulgaris</i> Boiss.; therefore the rank of “ <i>α</i> ” and “ <i>β</i> ” can clearly be established as variety. In addition, Lange <i>in</i> Willkomm &amp; Lange (1880), cited the varietal status of both names. The varieties “ <i>obtusifolia</i> ” and “ <i>ceratophylla</i> ” are from the same <i>locus classicus</i>: “ <i>In rupestribus regionis montanae Hispanicae centralis, hucusque non nisi in Sierra de Gredos reperta (ad Serranillos, Isern, Cut.!. Puerto del Pico, Bourg.!) ubi utraque forma promiscue crescere videtur. – Julio (v.s.)</i> ” (Willkomm <i>in</i> Willkomm &amp; Lange 1865). Willkomm also mentioned “ <i>Serranillos</i> ” in the protologue of <i>S</i>. <i>heterophylla</i>. This indicates that Willkomm granted a varietal status to the intrapopulational variation. The specimens COI-WILLK 00035955 and COI-WILLK 00035989 of Willkomm’s herbarium are on the same sheet (Fig. 3). This sheet has two labels in the lower left-hand margin with the following notation in black ink: <b>Label 1</b> (Bourgeau’s handwritten notation): “E. Bourgeau <i>–</i> Pl. d’Espagne 1863 // 2540. <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. Diagn. / Pl. Or. Ser.2, fasc. 3, p. 18 (Planta herbaria Paroniani, cujus patria nodium involucrate) // (J. Gay) // Rochers de la Sierra de Gredos au Puerto del Pico // 8 et 25 juill”; <b>Label 2</b> (Willkomm’s handwritten notation): “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. [underlined] // 1. var. <i>α obtusifolia</i> / 2. var. <i>β ceratophylla</i> ”. Voucher specimens from the <i>locus classicus</i> and with the number “ <i>2540</i> ” were found in A 00251664, G, HEID 702282, LY (2 sheets), MA 720935, MPU (3 sheets), P (3 sheets) and W (3 sheets), but they do not include a revision label of Willkomm with the epithets “ <i>obtusifolia</i> ” and “ <i>ceratophylla</i> ”. The collection to the left, COI-WILLK 00035955, comprises two samples from the same gathering, labelled with the name “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> var. <i>α obtusifolia</i> ” (lectotype here designated; Fig. 3). One of them (sample to the right) has three flowering stems and a small sterile stem, and the other (sample to the left) is a robust sample with four flowering stems and several vegetative stems. The lectotype has two revision labels by Sánchez-Mata and Sardinero with the following notation in black ink: <b>Label 1</b>: “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. var. <i>obtusifolia</i> Willk. <i>in</i> Willk. &amp; Lange // Lectotype [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”; <b>Label 2</b>: “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”. Both samples have spatulate leaves, but the flowering stems are strongly thickened above and the capitula are big (Fig. 3). The literature does not show the publication of this lectotype by Sánchez-Mata &amp; Sardinero. There is another specimen with the name “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> var. <i>α obtusifolia</i> ” in W herbarium. The sheet (W 0026403; Fig. 4) has a different collection date (Sierra de Gredos, Leg. Bourgeau 3.VII.1863, Cour. Willkomm), and the number “2540” is not shown. This specimen does not show intermediate characteristics between <i>S. oblongifolia</i> and <i>S. rosmarinifolia</i> subsp. <i>rosmarinifolia</i>. All the characteristics fit with those listed in the protologue (Appendix 1). Jordan &amp; Fourreau (1869) published a new taxon (<i>S. sericea</i>) based on plants from the <i>locus classicus</i> of the varieties <i>obtusifolia</i> and <i>ceratophylla</i>. However, they did not cite it in the protologue. They also published a detailed diagnosis of <i>S. sericea</i> (Appendix 1). Furthermore, figure 321, table 240 (Jordan &amp; Fourreau 1869) shows a robust sample of <i>S</i>. <i>sericea</i>. Two sheets are preserved in the Jordan’s herbarium (LY) with the epithets “ <i>sericea</i> ”. The records indicate that the sample Jordan used to illustrate this name was split into two units and mounted on two sheets. They were labelled as “ <i>1 ère feuille</i> ” (Fig. 5) and “ <i>2 ème feuille</i> ” (Fig. 6, specimen to the right). The sheet designated “ <i>1 ère feuille</i> ” (Jordan’s handwritten notation in graphite in the lower left margin) has a sample, in the centre of the sheet, with three flowering stems, two fragments of flowering stems and three sterile stems. There is also a large, isolated sterile stem to the right of the sample (Fig. 5) [this sample is the portion to the right-hand of the original specimen]. A label in the central lower margin indicates: “ <i>Santolina sericea</i> [underlined] // Jord. et Fourr. // Lectotypus [underlined] // D. Rivera // 18/10/1984 [D. Rivera’s handwritten notation]”. This lectotype was not published by D. Rivera. The sheet designated “ <i>2 ème feuille</i> ” (Jordan’s handwritten notation in the central lower margin in graphite) has two samples (Fig. 6). The sample to the right is the portion to the left-hand-side of the original material. It has a decumbent branch with eight flowering stems. The sample to the left (representing a different gathering) has a small branch with three flowering stems. This sample shows clear intermediate characteristics (linear and narrowly spatulate leaves, peduncles strongly thickened above and umbilicate capitula) between <i>S</i>. <i>oblongifolia</i> and <i>S</i>. <i>rosmarinifolia</i> subsp. <i>rosmarinifolia</i>. The lectotype is the specimen from the sheet designated “1ère feuille” (Fig. 5 [sample to the left]). It has three flowering stems and three other short vegetative stems. Furthermore, Nyman (1879) cited the present Bourgeau’s collection as <i>S. oblongifolia</i>. Willkomm <i>in</i> Willkomm &amp; Lage (1865), in the protologue of the variety ceratophylla, cited <i>S. heterophylla</i> as a synonym of this name. There are two possibilities regarding <i>S. oblongifolia</i> var. <i>β ceratophylla</i>: – Option 1: Willkomm created a new name, at varietal rank for <i>S. heterophylla</i> (even if he did not use the same final epithet). This theory is supported by the following evidences: 1) Willkomm &amp; Cutanda in Willkomm (1859) in the protologue of <i>S. heteroplylla</i> wrote “An varietas S. oblongifoliae?”, indicating that the authors had doubts about the species status of <i>S. heterophylla</i>; 2) both names have the same <i>locus classicus</i>; 3) the single specimen cited in the protologue of <i>S. heterophylla</i> (COI-WILLK 0035956) bears the both names; 4) Willkomm (1865) cited <i>S. heterophylla</i> as synonym of the variety “ <i>ceratophylla</i> ”. If this is the case, the two names (<i>S. heteroplylla</i> and <i>S. oblongifolia</i> var. <i>β ceratophylla</i>) have the same lectotype (COI-WILLK 0035956, here designated; see ICBN: art. 7.3 and 7.4; McNeill <i>et al.</i> 2006), therefore the both names are homotypic synonyms. – Option 2: Willkomm created a new taxon at varietal rank for <i>S. heterophylla</i>. This theory is supported by the following evidences: 1) the author published a more accurate diagnosis with elements of the diagnosis of <i>S. heterophylla</i>; 2) he changed “ <i>spathulato-linearibus</i> ” (<i>S. heterophylla</i>) to “ <i>cuneato-linearia</i> ” (<i>S. oblongifolia</i> var. <i>β ceratophylla</i>); 3) the author included new elements in the diagnosis: “ <i>folia superiora aut summa integerrima, omnia virentia</i> ”; and 4) Willkomm studied more specimens and redefined the concept of <i>S. heterophylla</i>. If the option 2 is correct, the specimen to the right (Fig. 3; COI-WILLK 00035989) is the lectotype (here designated) of <i>S. oblongifolia</i> var. <i>β ceratophylla</i>. The sample has two flowering stems and a sterile stem.This specimen has two revision labels by Sánchez-Mata &amp; Sardinero with the following notation in black ink (the labels are placed under one of the specimens of the variety “ <i>obtusifolia</i> ”, probably a handling error): <b>Label 1</b>: “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. var. <i>ceratophylla</i> Willk. <i>in</i> Willk. &amp; Lange // Typus [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”; <b>Label 2</b>: “ <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> Boiss. [handwritten] // Coimbra [printed] 1993 IX [handwritten]”. However, the specimen COI-WILLK 00035956 (Fig. 2, see lectotypification of <i>S. heterophylla</i>) was also selected by Sánchez-Mata &amp; Sardinero as <i>typus</i> of <i>Santolina oblongifolia</i> var. <i>ceratophylla</i>. The specimens display characteristics consistent with those listed in the protologue (Appendix 1) and show characteristics intermediate between <i>S</i>. <i>oblongifolia</i> and <i>S</i>. <i>rosmarinifolia</i> subsp. <i>rosmarinifolia</i>. AORG considers that option 2 is the most appropriate.
description: Published as part of <i>Rivero-Guerra, Aixa O., 2012, Santolina orocarpetana sp. nov. (Asteraceae: Anthemideae), a new species from the Iberian Peninsula. Revision of the lectotype of S. oblongifolia Boiss., pp. 133-154 in Adansonia (3) (3) 34 (1)</i> on pages 138-144, DOI: 10.5252/a2012n1a16, http://zenodo.org/record/5205801
description: {"references": ["WILLKOMM M. &amp; LANGE J. 1865. - Prodromus Florae Hispanicae II. Typis e sumtibus librariae E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgartiae, 680 p.", "WILLKOMM M. &amp; LANGE J. 1880. - Prodromus Florae Hispanicae III. Typis e sumtibus librariae E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgartiae, 1144 p.", "JORDAN A. &amp; FOURREAU J. 1869. - Icones ad Floram Europae novo fundamento instaurandam spectantes. II. Apud Savy, Bibliopolam, Paris, 25 p., tabs 201 - 280.", "NYMAN C. F. 1879. - Conspectus florae Europaeae. Suecia typis Officinae Bohlinianae, Orebro, 856 p.", "WILLKOMM M. 1859. - Pugillus plantarum novarum peninsulae pyrenaicae. Linnaea 30: 106 - 107.", "MCNEILL J., BARRIE F. R., BURDET H. M., DE- MOULIN V., HAWKSWORTH D. L., MARHOLD K., NICOLSON D. H., PRADO J., SILVA P. C., SKOG J. E., WIERSEMA J. H. &amp; TURLAND N. J. 2006. - International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna. Austria, July 2005. A. R."]}