Narcissus litigiosus Amo y Mora (1861: 8)

Vizoso, M. Teresa & Quesada, Carmen, 2018, Nomenclatural types of names published by Amo y Mora, Phytotaxa 356 (4), pp. 276-284 : 280-281

Narcissus litigiosus Amo y Mora (1861: 8)

Protologue citation:—“Habitat floretque cum praecedente in codem tempore iisdemque locis sed rarior.” (in the protologue of N. litigiosus ). “Habitat in cacumine collis del Martinete prope Granatam locis petrosis pundingaeformibus, ad 700 metra alt. non copiose.” in the protologue of the precedent taxon, N. graellsii var. granatensis Amo ).

Holotype:— SPAIN. Granada, Cerros del Martinete y de San Antón, in lapidosis pundingaeformibus, 02/[1856–1860]. M. del Amo y Mora s.n. ( GDA 62629 !). Accepted name, [Sp].

Note:—The specimen is included in a folder with the handwritten inscription “118 // Narcissus nivalis ”; however, in the sheet itself the following information is written by hand: “ Narcissus litigiosus Amo // nivalis Grlls. // Cerros del Martinete y de San Antón / in lapidosis pundingaeformibus. Febrero”, and furthermore it contains a label G in which the handwritten notation appears “ Narcissus ni- / valis Grlls. var. / granatensis Amo // Nº 118”.

After comparing the specimen with the descriptions of these names, we conclude that this is N. litigiosus , which as Amo mentioned in his publication is distinguished from N. bulbocodium Linnaeus (1753: 289) by the truncated corona, as well as “protruding stamens (exserted) of N. litigiosus , which separate it also from N. graellsii var. granatensis Amo , which has included ones (not exserted) or not extending beyond the corona”, traits that can be clearly appreciated in 4 of the 5 specimens in the sheet. Moreover, it is the only sheet of this collection designated by Amo as litigiosus , and therefore, according to Art. 9.1 of the ICN should be accepted as the holotype. Amo, in the Flora fanerogánica 1: 494–495, considered this name synonymous with N. graellsii var. dubius Amo y Mora (1871: 494) , although this remained unvalidated for not having used the previous species epithet in the status of the variety.

In the work of Negrillo Galindo & Marín Calderon (1985b), this sheet appears as the type of N. nivalis var. granatensis Amo y Mora (1871: 494) [= N. graellsii var. granatensis Amo y Mora (1861: 7) ] without including any review label in the sheet itself. This confusion could have come about on comparing the locotype indication with the data handwritten on the sheet. Amo gave the same indication for both taxa, observing in N. litigiosus that it flowers at the same time and in the same place as the preceding one, being rarer and in the preceding one he gave the complete indication coincident with the information in the label. This could have confused the authors if they did not recognice which of the descriptions given for the two names matched the specimens of the sheet. The only description that fits the specimens of that sheet is that of N. litigiosus . Also, the identification on label G could have influenced them, this being the same one as they proposed. On the other hand, no other sheet has been found in Amo’s collection that fits the description and locotype indication of N. nivalis var. granatensis .

In Flora iberica , this taxon was considered as the hybrid N. cantabricus De Candolle in Redouté (1816: 126) × N. triandrus Linnaeus (1762: 416) subsp. triandrus , appearing between the synonyms of the two previous names, as well as of N. litigiosus nothovar. granatensis (Amo) Fernández Casas (2005: 273) . However, Fernández Casas (2005b), in his study Tres narcisos granadinos descritos por del Amo y Mora, accepted the concept of hybrid for this taxon, including two nothovarieties, the nothovar. litigiosus for the taxon at hand, and combining the other two names used by Amo in the nothovar. granatensis . He studied the collection in the years 1971–1972 and later, in September of 2003, and again reviewed it but not found the sheet of N. litigious , probably because it was in a separate box.

Ophrys scolopax Cavanilles (1793: 46) var. granatensis Amo y Mora (1861: 5)

= Ophrys scolopax Cav. (1793: 46)

Protologue citation: “Habitat in Coryletis et Quercetis collinum granatensium, locis umbrosis, procipue [sic, probably precipue] en los de Jesús del Valle una legua distante de Granada. Floret Maii.”

Lectotype (designated here):— SPAIN. Granada, monte de Jesús del Valle, 12/07/?[1856–1860]. M. del Amo y Mora s.n. ( GDA 62630 !).

Note:—The specimen is included in the folder inscribed by hand “ Ophrys scolopax Cav. ” and on the same sheet appears the handwritten inscription “Montes de Jesus del / Valle. Julio 12”. In addition, it contains a piece of paper bearing the description of the new taxon that begins with the name given by Amo “ Ophrys scolopax Cav. var. granatensis ” and coincides with the published one. On the front side the following also appears: “specimens collected in the hazel-wood stands and hillsides of Granada, mainly in Jesus del Valle”. Therefore, this sheet, which has three specimens attached, has been registered in the GDA herbarium and is designated as the lectotype. In addition, in the same folder appear other sheets, one of which without a label or any inscription and the other contains a handwritten label stating “ Ophrys scolopax var. granatensis / Cerros montuosos de Granada / Mayo 8” [Mountainous areas of Granada]. They contain both specimens but in a worse state of conservation.

Zollikoferia granatensis Amo (1861: 2)

= Crepis albida Villar (1779: 37) [The Plant List 2013]

= C. taraxacoides Pourret (1788: 317) ≡ Hypochaeris taraxacoides Pourr. ex Steudel (1821: 422)

= H. taraxacifolia Moench (1802: 224)

= Sonchus tomentosus Palau ex Willkomm & Lange (1865: 241)

= Scorzonera orientalis Cav. ex Willkomm & Lange (1865: 249)

Protologue citation:—“Hab. in herbosis regionis montanae Sierra-Nevada prope el cortijo de San Gerónimo. Florebat die 2 Julii anni 1856 in quo eam legi.”

Holotype:— SPAIN. Granada, Sierra Nevada prope el Cortijo de San Gerónimo , in herbosis, 02 July 1856, M. del Amo y Mora s.n. ( GDA62624 !).

Note:—The sheet is included in the folder that on the front also has a handwritten inscription by Amo, “518 // Zollikoferia granatensis (Amo) ” and contains two labels, one handwritten that states: “Taraxacum sp. n.? // Cortijo de San Gerónimo / 2 Julio”, and another label G, which has a handwriting “ Zollikoferia / granatensis Amo // Núm. 518” presumably by García Álvarez. The sheet also contains two pieces of paper with the description of the new taxon handwritten by Amo in addition to observations in which he separates it from Scorzonera pumila of Cavanilles (1793: 19). The description corresponds exactly with the published one. As this one is the only sheet of this taxon in Amo’s collection and corresponds exactly to the locotype indication published and furthermore contains the handwritten description of Amo, it is considered the holotype (Art. 9.1 of the ICN). The specimens it bears are in very bad condition.