Type material

France • Gard, La Grand-Combe près d’Alais et le Vigan; s.d.; P.M.C. de Pouzolz [s.n.]; lectotype: P[P00789786]! (Fig. 1), here designated.

Typification remarks

Cistus ‌pouzolzii was discovered by Pierre Marie Casimir de Pouzolz and validly published by Delile (1840) as a new species from the Hortus regius Monspeliensis. The diagnosis of the protologue is very precise: “Cistus Pouzolzii. ‌Nova species in Hort. Monsp. Cinereo-glaucus, pilosus; foliis sessilibus oblongis nervosis, vernalibus margine crispis; pedunculis cymosis subsecundis; calycis fructiferi sepalis exterioribus auriculato-cordatis, capsula ovatà, apice sericeo-pilosulà” [Cistus Pouzolzii. ‌New species in Hort. Monsp. Cinereous-glaucous, pilose; leaves sessile oblong nervose, vernals with crispate margins; peduncles subsecondly cymose; fruiting calyx outer sepals auriculate-cordate, capsule ovate with apex sericeous-pilosulose]. In addition to the Latin diagnosis, a French text is included with the indication of the type locality and the mention of the collector: “Cette espèce a été découverte dans le département du Gard, aux environs des villes d’Alais et du Vigan, par M. le capitaine De Pouzolz, de Nimes, qui [s]c’est occupé avec succés [sic.] du perfectionnement de la flore de France et de celle d’Espagne.” [This species was discovered in the department of Gard, near the towns of Alais and Vigan, by Captain De Pouzolz, from Nîmes, who successfully worked on improving the flora of France an that of Spain.]

Delile’s herbarium is preserved at the University of Montpellier (MPU), with duplicates in other herbaria (Stafleu & Cowan 1976-1988). Seven sheets collected by Pouzolz between 1833 and 1838 have been located at MPU (MPU013797, MPU013798, MPU013799, MPU013800, MPU013801, MPU013802 and MPU013803), which, in addition to the original labels, were also labelled as “Isosyntype” by Andrine J. M. Faure. Further material at M, barcoded M0112494, bears a label without date but with the handwriting and signature of Delile (see Burdet 1974: 233): “HERBARIUM REGIUM MONACENSE. / Cistus Pouzolzii / quae habent semina non germinaverum / [signature of Delile] / D’alais. France meridionale / Delile / HERB. ZUCCARINII. / Herb. Univ. Ludov. Maximil.”. This specimen is a duplicate given by Delile to Joseph Gerhard Zuccarini (b.-d.), second curator of the herbarium of Munich (1835-1848); his herbarium was incorporated into M in 1849 (Hertel & Schreiber 1988).

At P, a relevant sheet barcoded P00789786 bears three labels, but without any date. Label 1 [handwritten by Delile]: “Cistus ‌pouzolzii – Alais / (Gard)”; Label 2 [handwritten by Pouzolz]: “Cistus ‌pouzolzii ‌Delile / la grand-combe prés d’Alais / le Vigan / de Pouzolz”; Label 3 [printed label]: “HERB. MUS. PARIS. / Herbier donné par M. Loret.” The sheet is part of the herbarium donated by Henri Loret (1811-1888) to the Herbier du Muséum de Paris. Loret was in charge of the herbaria of the Université de Montpellier (Stafleu & Cowan 1976-1988; Decoursier-Sandoz & Charpin 2023).

In conclusion, considering the handwritten labels and the collection dates, all the specimens mentioned above can be part of the original material used by Delile to describe his species. Unfortunately, none of these specimens belong to the same gathering, so they are not duplicates. Perhaps the only duplicates could be specimens MPU013797 and MPU013802, both collected in June 1837, apparently from the same locality. However, we selected the specimen barcoded P00789786 as the lectotype of the name Cistus pouzolzii. Its characters coincide completely with the diagnosis, as do the collector and the locality mentioned in the protologue. Furthemore, the specimen (leaves sessile, oblong with undulate margin; unilateral cyme; fruiting sepals cordate-ovate; petals equal to sepals in anthesis) is very complete and well preserved, which coincides with the traditional concept and current usage of the name (Rouy & Foucaud 1895; Tison & de Foucault 2014; Sánchez-Gómez et al. 2024).

Type material

Italy • Cet arbrisseau passe pour originaire d’Italie; s.d.; P.A. Micheli [s.n.]; lectotype: P-JU[P06986452]! (Fig. 2); designated by Demoly (1994: 76); probable isolectotypes: P[P06588439]! (Fig. 3), OXF[SHER-2748]! (Fig. 4)

Cistus× varius Pourr., Histoire et Mémoires de l’Académie royale des Sciences, Inscriptions et Belles Lettres de Toulouse 3: 312 (Pourret 1788), pro sp.; syn. nov. (see below).

Remarks

Cistus ‌florentinus was published as a new species by Lamarck (1786) in the second volume of the Encyclopédie méthodique, basing on plants preserved in the “Herbier de Lamarck” and the “Herbier Jussieu” (both at P), to which the author had access as “Garde des herbiers du cabinet du Roi” (Aymonin 1981; Ferrer-Gallego 2016).

The protologue of Cistus ‌florentinus ‌(Lamarck 1786: 17) includes a diagnosis: “18. Ciste de Florence, Cistus Florentinus.Cistus ‌fruticosus ‌exstipulatus, foliis angusto-lanceolatis rugosis subtus reticulatis subsessilibus, pedunculis villosis subtrifloris. N.”, followed by a mention of the Jussieu herbarium: “Cistus ‌ladanifera Florentina. Michael. D. Sherard. ex herb. Juss.”, and a detailed description in French, at the end of which it states: “Cet arbrisseau passe pour originaire d’Italie. Ђ. (v.s. in h. Juss.)” [This shrub is thought to have originated in Italy. Ђ symbol that indicates shrub or woody plant. (“v.s.” meaning “vue sèche”, it has been seen in a dry state from the Jussieu herbarium)].

In the handwritten catalogue “Catalogue de l’herbier de Antoine Laurent de Jussieu 1868” (MNHN 1868: 543), it is noted under the genus Cistus 2514, with “Numéros d’ordre 12.647 / florentinus ‌Lamk. / Localités et orige. ex. herb. Sherardi / Synonymes et noms mis postérieurement (à) Cistus ‌italicus ‌Pourr”.

Braem (1995: 30) also noted the existence of a Cistus ‌florentinus specimen in the Jussieu herbarium (Sheet Number 935/3); Aubin (1986: 135) and Demoly (1994: 76) also studied this specimen.

The Jussieu Herbarium is one of the “historical herbaria” of the Herbier du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris (MNHN), which has provided an image at P06986452. On the cover of the folder is the handwritten annotation “23 C. ‌florentinus ‌Pourr.” and inside is the sheet with the Jussieu herbarium label and five additional labels (Fig. 2).

1. “Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Paris / Herbier d’Antoine Laurent de Jussieu / Donné au Muséum par les enfants d’Adrien de Jussieu en 1857. / Catal. Nº 12.647”. [printed label].

2. “Cistus ‌ladanifera, ‌Florentina Michael / Sherard 1717”. [handwriting by Antoine de Jussieu].

3. “Cistus ‌italicus P. / (Pourret)” [signed by Pourret].

4. “Cistus ‌florentinus ‌Lamark dict. / Ex Pourr. Fl. ‌narbon. p. 16 accedit ad ejusdem C. ‌varium.” [handwriting by Lamarck].

5. “Stephanocarpus Monspeliensis ‌Spach” [handwriting by Spach].

6. “C. ‌florentinus Lam. (salvifolius × monspeliensis) Determinavit: Dansereau5 XI 1938”. [modern label by Dansereau].

In addition to this specimen from the Jussieu herbarium, two other sheets have been located. The first is in the Herbier Vaillant (P06588439) with Label 1: “Cistus ‌ladanifera ‌Florentina. Mich. Pl. Florent. nº. 46. / herbier de Vaillant” and Label 2: “Cistus ‌florentinus ‌Lmk. Encycl. – 9” (Fig. 3). Another Sherard specimen exists in the Sherard Herbarium at OXF[SHER-2748]. It was annotated by William Sherard as “Cistus ‌ladanifera, ‌Florentina. / Fl. Nº, 46.” (Fig. 4).

Both the Herbier Jussieu and Herbier Vaillant sheets feature the name “Michaeli” and the abbreviation “Mich.”, which undoubtedly refer to Pier Antonio Micheli, an Italian botanist and curator of the botanical garden in Florence. Micheli was a close associate of Sherard and Vaillant, with whom he exchanged plants (Dandy 1958; Stafleu & Cowan 1976-1988; Nepi 2009).

The English botanist William Sherard studied botany in Paris from 1686 to 1688 under Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656-1708) and in Leiden with Paul Hermann (1646-1695). He later founded a chair of botany at Oxford, which was later held by Johann Jacob Dillenius (1684-1747). Sherard’s herbarium, library and manuscripts are preserved at OXF, with additional material stored at E, P-JU, and in the Sloane Herbarium (BM) (Stafleu & Cowan 1976-1988). Sherard travelled extensively throughout Europe, meeting Micheli in Florence in 1697 (Ramsbottom 1957; Jarvis 2016), and visiting his teacher and friend, Tournefort. In May 1721, he visited Vaillant in Paris (Jackson 1874).

The sheet from the Jussieu herbarium (Fig. 2) contains a specimen with inflorescences, whereas the sheets from the Vaillant herbarium (Fig. 3) and the Sherard herbarium (Fig. 4) contain fragments, one with inflorescences and another in a vegetative state. Based on their morphological features and stage of anthesis, these three sheets might correspond to a single gathering. The specimen from the Jussieu herbarium sheet (P06986452) matches both the vegetative and floral characteristics described by Lamarck. Furthermore, the sheet has a manuscript label from Lamarck and the phrase of the protologue “Cistus ‌ladanifera Florentina. Michael. D. Sherard. ex herb. Juss.”, is identical to label 2, confirming that it is the specimen used by Lamarck. It is undoubtedly a syntype of C. ‌florentinus ‌Lam. and was indicated as the type of the name by Demoly (1994: 76). The other two specimens can be considered probable duplicates.

Type material

Italy • Cet arbrisseau passe pour originaire d’Italie; s.d.; P.A. Micheli [s.n.]; lectotype: P-JU[P06986452]!, here designated: Probable isolectotypes; P[P06588439]! (Fig. 3), OXF[SHER-2748]! (Fig. 4).

Other original material

France • Aux environs de Narbonne, à Portel.; s.d.; [s.c., s.n.]: “Herb. Mus. Paris. / Environs de Narbonne / Collection de l’Abbé Pourret, extraite de l’Herbier légué par M. le Dr. Barbier. 1847”, P[without barcode]! (Fig. 5).

Typification remarks

The historical circumstances experienced by Pierre-André Pourret (1754-1818) resulted in the scattering or loss of his herbaria and writings during the French Revolution of 1789 and the Spanish invasion of 1808 (Galibert 1856; Maugeret 1862; Leresche & Levier 1881; Gard 1932; Laínz 1988).

Aymonin (1963: 136) pointed out that a neotype of C. × varius should be selected, because most of the Cistus specimens in the Pourret collection were destroyed. However, specimens of this genus collected by Pourret are preserved in various herbaria, mainly in MAF and P (Guétrot 1931; Stafleu & Cowan 1976-1988; Lourteig & Jovet 1997).

The MAF-Pourret herbarium is preserved at the Complutense University of Madrid (Gutiérrez-Bustillo & Navarro 1989; Muñoz et al. 1993), but it does not contain any specimens of C. × varius (Gard 1932; J. Pizarro, pers. comm.), nor does the Royal College “Alfonso XII” (González Bueno et al. 2018), or the BC-Salvador herbarium (Gavioli et al. 2023). Searches have also been conducted in other herbaria (e.g., BM, FI, G, MPU, SBT, and UPS) that house Pourret’s materials, but none contain specimens of C. × varius.

At P, Pourret’s plants are interspersed in the general herbarium, except for the Cistus species, which form a separate collection (Lourteig & Jovet 1997). Among Pourret’s herbaria in P is the collection donated in 1847 by Dr. Joseph-Athanase, Baron de Barbier, to the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris (Jardin des Plantes). This donation includes the herbarium that Pourret had deposited in the Natural History Cabinet of the Loménie de Brienne brothers, of which he was the director (Lapeyrouse 1813; Stafleu & Cowan 1976-1988). These specimens were accompanied by a printed label stating the following: “Collection de l’abbé Pourret, extraite de l’Herbier légué par M. le Dr. Barbier, 1847.” (Pons 1893; Bonnet 1916).

One of these specimens, which was sent to us by the MNHN (Fig. 5), is handwritten in the lower left corner as “Cistus ‌florentinus Pourr.”, in addition to the previously mentioned label “Herb. Mus. Paris. Collection de l’abbé Pourret, extraite de l’Herbier légué par M. le Dr. Barbier, 1847.” to which has been added by hand “Environs de Narbonne” and another handwritten label, possibly later, stating: “Cistus Florentinus ‌Pourr. pourrait être le même que le C. Florentinus ‌Lam. [..le] C. ‌salvifolio ‌monspeliensis […le] p. [2]7. voir l’observation de Pourret / à vérifier”. The specimen is accompanied by two calligraphed sheets (Fig. 6) containing the classification, synonymy, diagnosis, description, place of origin, and observations. The diagnosis is almost identical to that published by Pourret: “Cistus ‌foliis ‌sub-lanceolatis, basi angustioribus, breviter petiolatis, utrinque rugosis, subtùs tomentosis, margine crispis, pedunculis axillaribus bracteatis triflorisque. Pourr.” and the synonyms mentioned are “Cistus ‌ladanifera ‌florentina ‌Sherard, herb. D. Juss.” and “Cistus ‌varius ‌P. Prosp. hist. Cistus”. The specimen bears three fragments with similar morphological characteristics, e.g., lanceolate leaves that narrow at the base, briefly petiolate, with crisped margins and trifloral inflorescences. This specimen is undoubtedly a good candidate to be selected as the lectotype of the name Cistus × varius.

However, in the protologue, Pourret also refers to a concrete specimen from M. de Jussieu’s herbarium that resembles his C. ‌varius under the name “Cistus ladanifera florentina. Sherard.” Concretely, in the protologue, is mentioned “Nota. M. de JUSSIEU a dans son herbier un échantillon d’un Ciste presque semblable au nôtre, sous le nom de Cistus ‌ladanifera florentina. SHERARD.” This material is the specimen selected as the lectotype of C. ‌florentinus, which bears Pourret’s annotation “Cistus ‌italicus” (i.e., P-JU[P06986452]). Lamarck’s annotation on this specimen in the Jussieu herbarium, which reads: “Ex Pourr. Fl. ‌narbon. p. 16 accedit ad ejusdem C. ‌varium”, likely refers to Pourret’s manuscripts, to which Lamarck appears to have had access (Timbal-Lagrave 1861: 31). Moreover, Pourret himself communicated many plants observed in Narbonne to Lamarck (Lamarck 1786). In conclusion, this specimen can be considered a syntype of the name Cistus × varius, as it was cited by Pourret in his protologue. According to Article 9.12 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) (Turland et al. 2018), this material has priority in the selection of the type over other original material. Consequently, this specimen is designated as the lectotype of Pourret’s name. The specimens P[P06588439] and OXF[SHER-2748] are possibly duplicates of P-JU[P06986452].

The manuscript Chloris ‌Narbonensis, submitted by Pourret in 1783 to the Académie Royale des Sciences, Inscriptions et Belles Lettres de Toulouse, was reviewed by Philippe Picot, Baron de Lapeyrouse, between May and July 1784. However, its publication was delayed until 1788, and only an excerpt was published (Pourret 1788; Timbal-Lagrave 1861, 1875). Therefore, Lamarck’s 1786 publication takes priority. As noted by Rouy & Foucaud (1895), the protologue for C. × varius aligns more closely with C. × florentinus than with C. ‌pouzolzii, which is not found in Narbonne.

Through consultation of original materials and the typification carried out in this work, it is now fully confirmed that both C. × varius and C. × florentinus refer to the same hybrid between C. monspeliensis L. and C. ‌salviifolius L., with Lamarck’s name having priority and the Pourret’s name being its homotypic synonym. This resolution clarifies the controversies surrounding the name C. ‌pouzolzii and reaffirms the currently accepted interpretation (Demoly & Montserrat-Recoder 1993; Dobignard & Chatelain 2011; Tison & de Foucault 2014; POWO 2024).