Centaurea eriophora Linnaeus (1753: 916)

Altinordu, Fahim & Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, 2016, Typifications of the Linnaean names Centaurea eriophora and C. orientalis (Asteraceae), Phytotaxa 277 (1), pp. 97-100 : 97-98

Centaurea eriophora Linnaeus (1753: 916)

Type (lectotype, designated here):—Herb. Linn. No. 1030.52 ( LINN [digital image!], image available at http://linnean-online. org/10657/).

Linnaeus (1753: 916–917) described Centaurea eriophora providing a short diagnosis “ CENTAUREA calycibus duplicato-spinosis lanatis, foliis semidecurrentibus integris sinuatisque” taken from Linnaeus (1748: 272, with the indication “*”) and Van Royen (1740: 140). The asterisk means that there is a good description in the marked source ( Stearn 1957). The diagnosis is followed by three synonyms. The first synonym, “ Centaurea calycibus duplicato-spinosis, foliis decurrentibus integris” was cited from Linnaeus (1738: 423), the second synonym “Calcitrapa lutea, alato caule, capite eriophoro” from Vaillant (1718: 166, n. 24 [as 212 by Linnaeus]), and the third synonym “Carduus lusitanicus canescens, alato caule, capite lanuginoso” from Tournefort (1700: 441). The protologue for this species also includes “ Habitat in Lusitania”, and the symbol “ʘ” [annual plant]. No illustrations nor direct references to illustrations were provided in the protologue.

Although Devesa & López Nieto (2013: 11) indicated as “ typus ” the sheet Herb. Linn No. 1030.52 as “ LINN 1030/52!”, this designation is not effective because it did not include the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent (Art. 7.10 of the Melbourne Code, McNeill et al. 2012), and the term “ lectotypus ”, its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (Art. 9.23 of the Melbourne Code).

Among the original material, in the Clifford Herbarium there is a sheet at BM (barcode BM 000647283, image available at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/research-curation/projects/clifford-herbarium/lgimages/ BM 000647283. JPG) that bears a plant identifiable as Centaurea eriophora according to the Linnaeus description and the current concept of the species (see e.g., Devesa & López Nieto 2013). The sheet includes the Clifford phrase “Carduus lusitanicus, canescens, alato caule, capite lanuginoso, Tournef. Inst. 441” linked to the Tournefort synonym cited in the protologue, and it can be considered for typification. In the Linnaean herbarium at LINN there is another specimen, Herb. Linn No. 1030.52 (image available at http://linnean-online.org/10657/). That sheet was annotated as “39 eriophora ” by Linnaeus, and this number corresponds to the Species Plantarum number of this species ( Linnaeus 1753: 916, and Stearn 1957, Turland & Jarvis 1997, Turland 2006, Jarvis 2007: 41–46).

On the other hand, further sheets of the species were found at LINN-HS and S-LINN. However, these are not original material for the name ( Jarvis 2007). In the Linnaean herbarium at the Swedish Museum of Natural History ( S) there are two relevant herbarium sheets. The sheet with the code S 09-20107 (image available at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap. specimen.s09-20107) is annotated “ Centaurea eriophora L.” but not by Linnaeus. The sheet was “titled” “ Centaurea ” on the top, apparently in the hand of Samuel Niklas Casström who may have possessed the specimen while working at the Botanical Museum in Stockholm. The verso of the sheet has annotations “ Centaurea calycibus duplicato spinosis lanatis, foliis semidecurrentibus integris sinuatisque. Linn. Spec. plant. 917. 39.” by D. Solander, and also “Herb. Casstromii”. This sheet lacks any annotation concerning the Species Plantarum numbering, and for this reason it can be considered a post- 1753 addition to the collection and therefore not as original material for the name. The other specimen at S, with the code S 09-20110 (image available at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.s09-20110) is annotated in two hands: “ Centaurea ” by some unidentified person (not by Linnaeus) and “ eriophora Linn. ” by J. E. Wikström. The back side of the specimen has the annotation “Herb. Casstromii”. This herbarium sheet contains only a plant fragment, with well-preserved flowering heads and leaves. However, the sheet lacks the relevant number (i.e. “39”) explicitly referring to the number of the species account of C. eriophora in Species Plantarum ( Linnaeus 1753: 916), and, consequently, is not original material for this Linnaean name. Finally, a sheet was found at LINN-HS (Herb. Linn. No. 1378.28, image available at http://plants.jstor. org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.linn-hs1378-28) which is named as C. eriophora . It also lacks an annotation concerning the Species Plantarum numbering, and can be thus considered a post-1753 addition to the collection and therefore not as original material for the name.

The sheet in the Linnaean herbarium at LINN (No. 1030.52) is part of the original material that better agrees with the diagnosis by Linnaeus (1753), especially such a character as lanate heads. This specimen has better preserved leaves and a flowering head, and thus its selection as a lectotype allows maintaining the traditional concept and the current use of the Linnaean name. Therefore, it is designated here as the lectotype of Centaurea eriophora .