Juno aucheri (Baker) Klatt (1872: 498)

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 : 186-187

Juno aucheri (Baker) Klatt (1872: 498)

≡ Xiphion aucheri Baker (1871: 110) , basionym ≡ Iris aucheri (Baker) Sealy (1950: 562) ≡ Thelysia fumosa Decaisne (1874: 304) , nom. illeg. (Art. 52.1 & 52.2(a) of the ICN) ≡ Iris fumosa Boiss. & Hausskn. in Boissier (1882: 123), nom. illeg. (Art. 52.1 & 52.2(e) of the ICN), non J. fumosa Kamelin (1973: 252) . Lectotype (designated as “type” by Wendelbo & Mathew 1975: 50):— SYRIA. [Label 1] “Syria orient. [handwritten] / Aucher-Éloy-Herbier d’Orient Nº [printed] 2137 [handwritten]”; [Annotated on the sheet]: “Type! / Xiphion aucheri Baker / in Trimen Journ. of Bot. 1871, p. 110” [handwritten]; [Label 2]: “ I. sindjarensis Boiss. [handwritten] / Determinavit [printed] W.R.D[ykes].” (K000499011 [digital image!]). Isolectotypes: BM00990982 (digital image!), BM00990983 (digital image!), LE00014032, P02158474 (digital image!), P02158475 (digital image!).

Observations:—As remarked by Boltenkov & Govaerts (2017), Juno aucheri (Baker) Klatt was described from plants collected in eastern Syria, which were said to produce yellow flowers ( Baker 1871). Three species have been usually synonymised to the former, namely J. sindjarensis (Boiss. & Hausskn. in Boissier 1882: 122) Kamelin (1973: 252), J. nusairiensis ( Mouterde 1966: 311) Soják (1982: 138) [≡ Iris nusairiensis Mouterde ] and J. fumosa Kamelin , they being often regarded as colour variants of J. aucheri . It is important to remark that J. sindjarensis and J. nusairiensis are widely considered to be bluish-flowered varieties, whereas J. fumosa is mostly regarded to produce pale-yellowish flowers with some greenish-grey tinge, a fact justifying the Latin epithet fumosus, -a, -um (smoky). However, the nomenclatural history of the latter name is a bit controversial. Although it was outlined in detail by Boltenkov & Govaerts (2017), some important aspects are still in need of further comment, and are dealt with in subsequent sections of the present paper.

In the protologue of Xiphion aucheri, Baker (1871) referred to a single collection (Aucher 2137), from which Boltenkov in Boltenkov & Govaerts (2017) designated a lectotype. That collection was also cited in the protologue of Thelysia fumosa by Decaisne (1874: 304), together with other material corresponding indeed to three different taxa. According to Art. 51.1 & 52.2(a) of the ICN, T. fumosa is illegitimate and is to be rejected since it included all syntypes of X. aucheri and was therefore nomenclaturally superfluous when published (i.e., Decaisne ought to have adopted the epithet aucheri in Thelysia ). Similarly, the name “ Iris fumosa Boiss. & Hausskn. ” in Boissier (1882: 123) is also illegitimate because he included Xiphion aucheri in synonymy, despite the description and material cited in the protologue do correspond to another different taxon subsequently validated by Kamelin (1973) in Juno (see below).

Juno aucheri s.str. is a species distributed in northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, western Iran and northern Iraq, with an extreme variation in both height and colour of flowers, these ranging from pure white or creamy-white, to all shades of blue, cobalt-blue, blue-violet, pinkish-lilac, violet and purple, including very dark purple; all those colours being found even in a single site within the same population ( Hall 2013). The chromosome counts for plants in that area are constantly 2n = 22 ( Hall 2001, Koçyiğit et al. 2013, M. Johnson & T. Hall unpubl.). Although in the protologue Baker (1871) described his X. aucheri as “ perianthii limbo flavescente ” [blade of perianth yellowish], true full yellow-flowered variants are not known in this species. However, sometimes the yellow colour of the raised crest of falls can extend onto the blade, so that whitish forms can appear yellowish (T. Hall pers. comm.). This effect is even magnified in herbarium material, which can often change colour after drying. In fact, Dykes (1912: 197) had already pointed out the difficulty of properly identifying flower colour in herbarium vouchers: “The behaviour of Iris flowers as they dry is most erratic. Some specimens keep their colour for months or years, and others lose it at once.” All things considered, we accept the name Juno aucheri for the whitish to creamy-white variant of the species. This name was lectotypified by Wendelbo & Mathew (1975) as: “Typus: Syria, AUCHER-ÉLOY 2137, K!”; recently, Boltenkov in Boltenkov & Govaerts (2017: 136) has designated the same voucher as lectotype, something apparently unnecessary. For the nomenclature and synonymy of the bluish variant of J. aucheri , as well as for the identity of Juno fumosa Kamelin (1973: 252) , see comments below.