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)
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)
