Juno sieheana (Lynch) M.B.Crespo, Mart.

Crespo, Manuel B., Martínez-Azorín, Mario & Mavrodiev, Evgeny V., 2018, Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature of juno irises (Juno, Iridaceae), Phytotaxa 376 (5), pp. 185-200 : 190-192

Juno sieheana (Lynch) M.B.Crespo, Mart. -Azorín & Mavrodiev comb. nov.

≡ Iris sieheana Lynch (1904a: 282) , basionym ≡ Iris persica var. sieheana (Lynch) Dykes (1912: 192) ≡ Iris persica f. sieheana (Lynch) Mathew & Wendelbo in Wendelbo & Mathew (1975: 55) ≡ Iris haussknechtii Siehe (1901: 313) , nom. illeg. [non Bornm. ex Baker (1892: 4)] (Art. 53.1 of the ICN) [replaced synonym] ≡ Juno haussknechtii Kamelin (1973: 252) , nom. illeg. superfl. (Art. 52.1 of the ICN). Neotype (designated here):— TURKEY. [C6 Hatay] Amanus, pr. Yarpuz [Nur Mountains], 800 m elevation, May 1912, W. Siehe s.n. (E00333002 [digital image!]). Fig. 2 .

= Iris persica var. magna Mallett (1901: 191) ]. Neotype (designated by Boltenkov in Boltenkov & Govaerts 2017: 132):— Iris persica L. var. magna Siehe, Hort. Kew. [cultivated material], 31 December [19]00, s.coll. s.n. (K001045490 [digital image!]).

Observations:—This species resembles Juno persica (L.) Tratt., to which it usually has been considered a synonym or a mere colour variant (cfr. Dykes 1912).Although J. sieheana , which has I. persica var. magna Mallett in synonymy, is supposed to occupy the mountain regions of the Syrian Desert to northwestern Iraq and southern Turkey (cfr. Wendelbo & Mathew 1975), its distribution is certainly restricted to dry southern and western slopes of primarily the Cilician Taurus in southern-central Turkey (Adana, Mersin, Kayseri, Niğde, Nevşehir, Aksaray, and Konya provinces) (T. Hall pers. comm.), with some populations eastwards ( Hatay, Osmaniye and Gaziantep provinces, and the neighbouring areas of northeastern Syria) slightly differing in some morphological traits but referable to this species in Siehe’s (1901) original concept of his illegitimate “ Iris haussknechtii ”. It is however relatively homogeneous throughout those Turkish territories and constant differences are found in the wild populations concerning its floral characteristics (e.g., large flowers up to 10 cm across, often with finely ruffled margins, haft to falls and style branches generally forming a less pronounced funnel shape than in other elements of the J. persica group; falls with wide obtuse wings; style lobes large and strongly petaloid; overall colour variable but usually monochromatic ―e.g., silvery-grey, pale chestnutbrown, smoky grey-brown, grey-violet, grey-purple, yellowish, olive-green, but sometimes with silvery-grey or pale yellow margins to perigone, and often with contrasting reddish markings and a prominent white zone either side of crest and midrib to falls―, although the blade to falls is invariable darker in tone; T. Hall pers. comm., but see also Hall & Seisums 2014b: 243), and also the outstanding white-membranous, ciliate margins of leaves, which suggest recognition at species rank ( Lynch 1904a,b). A fine illustration was published by Wright (1906), who also related the present species to J. rosenbachiana (Regel) Vved.

Concerning the original material of J. sieheana, Dykes (1912: 192) cited the existence of specimens at E, BM, B and OXF, collected in “Kagiraki [sphalmate: ‘Hagiraki’] 1896, Siehe ” [Mersin province], which could be regarded as original material.We have traced three vouchers in the Edinburgh herbarium (E) which can be considered for typification. Two of them (E00332999 & E00333000) are identified as “ Iris persica L.” and correspond to the collection number Siehe 11 of his Cilician expedition in March 1896. However, provided that no direct or indirect unequivocal reference was made to those materials in the protologues by Siehe (1901) and Lynch (1904a), and because no annotation exists on any of both vouchers connecting them to either “ I. haussknechtii Siehe ” or “ I. persica var. magna Mallet ” (another previous epithet cited by Siehe in the protologue of “ I. haussknechtii ”, but not as a replacing synonym), they can be hardy considered as original material. The third specimen at E (E00333002) includes material matching the protologue of Iris sieheana . It was gathered in Amanus, pr. Yarpuz, in May 1912 by Siehe, a voucher he himself annotated as “ Iris sieheana Lynch ”, and therefore it is not original material since was gathered much later than the description of both “ I. haussknechtii Siehe ” and I. sieheana Therefore , in absence of true original material the specimen E00333002 is designated here as neotype for I. sieheana ( Fig. 2 ). Furthermore, the neotype of I. persica var. magna Mallet (1901: 191) designated by Boltenkov in Boltenkov & Govaerts (2017: 132) on a specimen (K001045490) of unknown provenance cannot be considered the automatic type of I. sieheana , since the latter name is not a replacing synonym of the former and hence both are heterotypic names. This fact however appears to be irrelevant since both neotypes might probably correspond to plants gathered in the same region of Nur mountains (cfr. Boltenkov in Boltenkov & Govaerts 2017: 132).

It is worth mentioning that the intended combination Juno haussknechtii (Siehe) Kamelin (1973: 252) , which has usually been regarded as a valid replacement name for the illegitimate homonym “ Iris haussknechtii Siehe , non Bornm. ex Baker” (Art. 53.1 of the ICN), unfortunately is also illegitimate and should not be used. Certainly, “ J. haussknechtii Kamelin ” was superfluous when published since implicitly included the type of Iris sieheana Lynch , a previous valid name published to replace “ I. haussknechtii Siehe ”, of which the epithet ought to have been adopted (Art. 52.1 of the ICN). Therefore, the needed new combination is effected here to accommodate the earlier I. sieheana in Juno .

Figures

FIGURE 2. Neotype of Iris sieheana Lynch (E00333002). Reproduced with permission (Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh).