Lectotype : Lectotype [see Molero & Rovira, 1987: 528, and further designated here (Art. 9.9): “Cistus laevis. Cav. Ico. 145. f. 1.” MA 475536 (Cavanillesii-Typi)]: the four fragments on the sides, one pair on each side of the sheet (i.e., all plant fragments except the central one).
Références :
Güemes & Muñoz-garmendia (2004)
Lectotype : Typus: [Spain, Valencia], “in montibus Enguerae et in Collado de Bocayrente”, 30 Jul 1791, Cavanilles (MA barcode MA 475536 [2 right-hand and 2 left-hand fragments, excl. central fragment]).
Références :
Ferrer‐gallego (2021)
Remarques : From the five fragments that make up the sheet: The central one belongs to a robust plant, with short inter-nodes, short inflorescence, acute floral bud, glabrous calyx, filiform stigma, glabrous ovary, still flowering. This plant is what is currently known as F. hispidula Loscos & J. Pardo; it was collected most likely in Bocairente (Valencia), where we have never seen F. laevis(Cav.) Pau. The remaining four fragments, arranged in pairs on both sides of the central one, belong to the same species. It is less robust, has a long inflorescence, obtuse floral bud, glanduliferous calyx, capitate stigma, hispidulous ovary, and advanced fructification. This is what we know under the name F. laevis, and most likely, it came from Enguera (Valencia), where it is known to grow. Indeed, Cavanilles included features from both species in the description; the same applies to the flowering period. Likewise, we believe that the plant illustration (tab. 145, fig. 1) combined features from both; the capitate stigma leads us to the four lateral fragments on the sheet, whereas the acute and glabrous floral bud and the robustness of the plant drawn coincide with the central sample. Faced with the ambiguity introduced by Cavanilles himself, an accurate lectotype designation is essential. From our point of view, it could be any of the fragments and so a decision was made to choose all four side fragments as a lectotype. In this way, the traditional use of the name, recently corroborated by Molero & Rovira (1987) and Güemes & Molero (1993), is reinforced. If the central fragment were chosen as a lectotype, as designated by M. Garre on the type sheet, F.laeviswould have to be applied to what presently is called F.hispidula, an endemic from the eastern half of the Iberian Peninsula, found on gypsum and exceptionally on coastal sands; and what is currently known as F. laevis would have to be called F. viridis (Ten.) Font Quer (based on HelianthemumvirideTen).
Références :
Güemes & Muñoz-garmendia (2004)
