Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 298, Issue 1, pp 87–92

The infrageneric nomenclature of Tulipa (Liliaceae)

Open AccessOriginal Article

DOI: 10.1007/s00606-011-0525-0

Cite this article as:
Veldkamp, J.F. & Zonneveld, B.J.M. Plant Syst Evol (2012) 298: 87. doi:10.1007/s00606-011-0525-0

Abstract

Zonneveld (Pl Syst Evol 281:217–245, 2009) proposed an infrageneric classification of Tulipa (Liliaceae) based on the nuclear content determined by flow cytometry and available morphological data. The nomenclatural consequences of this are discussed here, involving the typification of generic and infrageneric names. Additional notes on some species are given. Four subgenera are distinguished, of which two are new; ten sections are proposed, four new; three new combinations are made, and seven lectotypes are designated. Tulipa praecox Ten. is a later homonym of T. praecox Cav. (Descripcíon de las plantas. 2: 448, 625, 1803); its correct name is Tulipa agenensis DC. Tulipa lemmersii Zonn., A. Peterse, J. de Groot is validated here by giving the type citation.

Keywords

IridaceaeTulipa Typification

Introduction

The genus Tulipa L. (Liliaceae) is of great economic, horticultural, esthetical, ecological, conservational, and taxonomic interest. It has attracted a great deal of attention from the Dutch Tulipomania of February 1637 until the export and tourism of today. It is undoubtedly the unofficial national flower of The Netherlands. Tulips occur naturally in temperate regions ranging from the southern Balkans to Siberia and west China, North Africa (Algeria), the east Mediterranean, and the Near East (Iran, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, etc.). The centre of diversity of the genus is in the Pamir and Hindu Kush mountains, and the steppes of Kazakhstan (Botschantzeva 1962). Some species have established themselves elsewhere: Tulipa sylvestris L. on old estates in Britain, The Netherlands, the United States, and Sweden (Linnaeus 1745), and the so-called Neotulipae, e.g. Tulipa marjoletii, Tulipa didieri, or Tulipa rubidusa in western Europe. The latter and most of the cultivars are here regarded as part of the Tulipa gesneriana L. complex.

This insight into the infrageneric relationships based on nuclear DNA content by flow cytometry is provided by Zonneveld (2009). He demonstrated that there are at least 87 species in 4 subgenera with 10 sections. We present here a survey of the many infrageneric names, their nomenclatural status, types, and synonymy. As several were not published validly there in anticipation of the present paper, which was unfortunately delayed too long, they are now. A few additional notes on the nomenclature of some species are given.

Methods

The nomenclatural articles referred to below are those of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the “Vienna Code” (ICBN: McNeill et al. 2006), unless preceded by ICNCP, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Brickell et al. 2004).

It can be noted that invalid names have no types. Representative taxa or specimens we here call “vouchers”. In the following “§” indicates names without a clear indication of rank.

The arrangement given is based on the latest complete classification (Zonneveld 2009). For easy reference the names are arranged alphabetically by subgenus and under these by sections, also alphabetically. Synonyms, if any, are given chronologically after the basionym.

Type of the genus

What is the type of Tulipa? Linnaeus (1753) described three species: Tetracera breyniana L., T. gesneriana, and T. sylvestris. Some authors have designated T. gesneriana, others T. sylvestris. General consensus favours the first, but the authorative Index Nominum Genericorum (ING, http://botany.si.edu/ing/) cites the latter. Which one is actually acceptable is of nomenclatural importance as these species belong to two different, generally recognised subgenera of the genus. These appear to be genetically quite different, as the members of one do not hybridise with those of the other. To avoid confusion in discussions, it is necessary to know what is meant by the autonym Tulipa subgen. Tulipa (and sect. Tulipa and ser. Tulipa). First we will deal with T. breyniana.

Tulipa breyniana

This name was based on the description and plate of Sisyrinchium, ex phoeniceo suaverubente flore, aethiopicum (Breyne 1678; Rudbeck 1701). The plate was reproduced by, e.g., Goldblatt (1973) and Jarvis (2007). It is depicted with what seems to be a superior ovary, which as it turned out must have been an error by the artist.

Lewis (1914) pointed out the further confusion created by Linnaeus (1762) in the second edition of the Species plantarum where he apparently added data from a specimen that he had misidentified with Breyne’s plate. Unfortunately, no voucher was found in any Linnaean herbarium. This was perpetuated by later authors who placed the species in the Liliaceae or Melanthiaceae as Kolbea Schlechtendal (1826), non Kolbia Adanson (1763), as Jania Schult. & Schult. (1830), non Lamouroux (1812), or as Baeometra Salisbury 1812, invalid (Art. 42.1, last sentence) ex Endlicher (1836)], Colchicaceae. Baeometra was invalidly published in 1812, as Salisbury referred to the earlier descriptions of Melanthium uniflorum Jacq. and T. breyniana L., which is not acceptable for a generico-specifica description (Art. 42.1, last sentence). The combination B. columellaris Salisb. is therefore also invalid (Art. 43.1), as it was published under an invalid generic name. The question whether it was also superfluous does not arise, as matters of legitimacy apply only to valid names. The correct combination, B. breyniana, was not made by Baillon (1894: 588) as was suggested by Durand & Jackson (1906) and was so entered in the International Plant Name Index (IPNI, http://www.ipni.org/). It was first proposed by Voigt (1845) and later by Durand and Schinz (1894). Currently, Baeometra contains only B. uniflora (Jacq.) G.J. Lewis.

Lewis identified the description and plate with the red-flowered form of Homeria collina (Thunb.) Vent. (based on Moraea collina Thunb., Iridaceae-Irideae) from the West Cape of South Africa, and she therefore proposed the combination H. breyniana (L.) G.J. Lewis with Breyne’s plate as the type.

Goldblatt (1973), however, disagreed with this and considered the plate to represent “a poorly illustrated, already wilted plant, possibly a Homeria… the [superior] gynoecium of a tulip is represented … it seems most unsatisfactory to attempt specific determination … [and] it is advisable to reject Tulipa (or Homeria) breyniana and to revert to Homeria collina”. Apparently this proposal for rejection has not been acted on (see also Jarvis 2007). Arnold and De Wet’s standard checklist for South African plant names (1993) apparently has followed Goldblatt’s (1973) suggestion, and they did not provide identification for the Linnaean name. The African flowering plants database (http://www.ville-ge.ch/cjb/bd/africa/resultat.php) has no “breyniana”. Presently (May 2011), Homeria has been reduced to Moraea Mill by Goldblatt (1998), so presumably T. breyniana belongs there, too. The combination M. breyniana has not been made. Obviously, it is not a suitable candidate for a lectotype of Tulipa L.

Tulipa s.str.

In a much overlooked publication Rafinesque (1837) placed T. gesneriana and T. sylvestris in two different genera, retaining the first in Tulipa and placing the latter in the new genus Liriopogon Raf. The only Linnean element thus still remaining in Tulipa is T. gesneriana, and this is to be regarded as the lectotype by exclusion (see Art.48.1, 52.2). Liriopogon sylvestris (L.) Raf. is here designated as the lectotype of Liriopogon. This typification was also endorsed by Hitchcock (1929), Dasgupta and Deb (1985), and van Raamsdonk & de Vries (1995).

Subgenera of Tulipa

Later authors also proposed a similar bipartition as Rafinesque (1837), but then within a single genus, Tulipa. Reboul (1847) distinguished sect. Dulipanum Spigel. ex Reboul (incl. e.g. T. gesneriana and T. sylvestris) and Tulipanum Spigel. ex Reboul (incl. e.g. T. clusiana DC. and T.oculus-soli St. Amans) based on the type of aestivation of the tepals and the presence of an indumentum on the inner side of the tunics. Koch (1849) proposed § Lanigera C. Koch (with T. Julia C. Koch) and § T. Leiobulbos C. Koch (with T. biebersteiniana Roem. & Schult and T. thirkeana C. Koch) also based on the presence of an indumentum on the inside of the tunics. Most, however, refer to Boissier (1882), who distinguished § Eriostemones Boiss. (incl. T. gesneriana) and § Leiostemones Boiss. (incl. T. biebersteiniana and T. sylvestris), based on the basal indumentum of the filaments and the relative length of the inner and outer whorl of the tepals.

These main groups were subsequently further divided by J.G. Baker (1874), Levier (1884), Vvedensky (1935, 1968), Hall (1940), van Raamsdonk & De Vries (1995), and Zonneveld (2009).

Baker (1931: 243) and Hall (1940: 60) used the name Dasystemones, a group of Tulips that is the most eastward of all. No species is mentioned, nor the source of this name, but a derivation from T. dasystemon (Regel) Regel seems likely. This now belongs to Biflores A.D. Hall ex Zonn. & Veldk. and occurs in Kazakstan, Kyrgyzistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and western China (western Xinjiang).

Classification

Tulipasubgen.Clusianae (Baker) Zonn., comb.nov.

≡ Tulipa sect. Clusianae Baker, Gard. Chron. n.s. 19: 626, 691 (1883). ≡ Tulipa subsect. Clusianae A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 81. 1940, nom. inval., manifeste, sed sine ref. basion.—Lectotype: Tulipa clusiana DC. (Art. 22.6).

Liriactis Raf., Fl. Tell. 4: 97. (1837; “1836”).—Type: Liriactis albiflora Raf., nom. superfl. [based on Tulipa stellata Hook. ≡ Tulipa clusiana DC. forma stellata (Hook.) S. Dasgupta & Deb].

Tulipasubgen.Eriostemones (Boiss.) van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 159: 42 (1995).

Tulipa § Eriostemones Boiss., Fl. Or. 5: 191, 196. (1882). ≡ Tulipa sect. Eriostemones (Boiss.) Boiss. ex Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 280 (reprint: 85). (1884). ≡ Tulipa subgen. Eriostemones (Boiss.) van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 159: 42. (1995).

—Lectotype (Mordak 1979: 235): Tulipa sylvestris L designated by Rafinesque (1837).

Notes: The name § Eriostemones Boiss. is legitimate but incorrect, as it contains Tulipa sylvestris [designated as (lecto)type at least by Van Raamsdonk, 1995], which, however, is also the type of the older § Sylvestres Baker (1874), see below), and therefore automatically is typified by that name (Art. 22.6). Subgenus Eriostemones (Boiss.) van Raamsd. (1995) seems to have no competition at the subgeneric level.

Tulipasect.Biflores A.D. Hall {gen.Tulipa:74 (1940). Nom inval (Art.36.1)}

ex Zonn. & Veldk.,sect.nov.

Bulbi parvi. Caules floribus usque ad 5 breviter pedicellatis. Perianthium parvum, intus luteum vel album basaliter macula lutea. Filamenta basi penicillata vel inflata.—Type: Tulipa biflora Pallas (1776); often cited as of Linnaeus 1781).

{gen.Tulipa:74 (1940). Nom inval (Art.36.1)}

Bulbs small. Stems with up to 5 shortly pedicelled flowers. Perianth small, inside yellow or white, with a basal yellow macula. Filaments at base hairy or inflated.

≡ Tulipa sect. Biflores A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 74. (1940), nom. inval., anglice.—Voucher: Tulipa biflora Pall. (Art.22.6).

Podonix Raf., Fl. Tell. 4: 28. (1838, “1836”).—Type: Podonix albiflora Raf. nom. superfl. (= Tulipa biflora Pall.).

Tulipa § Albae Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 280. (1884) (reprint: 85). Lectotype: Tulipa biflora L., designated here.

Tulipa sect. Lophophyllon Vved. in Kom., Fl. USSR 4: 352. (1935). (Engl. trans.: 270. 1968), nom. inval. russice (anglice).—Voucher: Tulipa regelii Krassn.

Note: Because sect. Lophophyllon was invalidly published, it has no priority over sect. Biflores. We have adopted Hall’s name as it seemed the one best known.

§ Albae is rankless, so there is no obligation to use it at the sectional level.

Tulipasect.Saxatiles (Baker) Baker, Gard. Chron. n.s. 19: 626 (1883); ibid. 20: 168 (1883).

Tulipa § Saxatiles Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 277. (1874, “1875”).—Type: Tulipa saxatilis Sieber ex Spreng. (Art. 22.6).

Tulipa § Roseae Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 285. (1884) (reprint: 90).—Lectotype: Tulipa saxatilis Sieber ex Spreng., designated here.

Tulipasect.Sylvestres (Baker) Baker, Gard. Chron. 20: 233. (1883).

Tulipa § Sylvestres Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 277. (1874; “Silvestres”, 1875”).—Type: Tulipa sylvestris L. (Art. 22.6). See remarks under Tulipa § Eriostemones.

Liriopogon Raf., Fl. Tell. 2: 25. (1837).—Lectotype: Liriopogon sylvestre (L.) Raf. (≡ Tulipa sylvestris L.), designated here.

Tulipa § Leiobulbos C. Koch, Linnaea 22: 225. (1849).—Lectotype: Tulipa biebersteiniana Schult. & Schult. f., designated here. See note.

Tulipa § Luteae Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 290. (1884) (reprint: 95).—Type: Tulipa orphanidea Boiss. ex Heldr.

Tulipa § Rubrae Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 288. (1884) (reprint: 93).—Lectotype: Tulipa bithynica Griseb., designated here.

Tulipa sect. Australes A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 51. (1940), nom. inval., anglice.—Voucher: Tulipa australis Link (Art. 22.6). If validated this name becomes superfluous when it includes Tulipa sylvestris L., the lectotype of Tulipa sect. Eriostemones Levier (1884).

Note. Koch (1849) described two unranked infrageneric taxa: § Lanigera C. Koch and § Leiobulbos C. Koch. Dasgupta and Deb (1985) on p. 160 correctly stated “without indicating the status”, but on p. 161 in the synonymy of sect. Tulipa regarded the first as a sectional name, and the second on p. 171 in the synonymy of sect. Sylvestres as unranked, both with an uncertain status. This latter statement is not clear to us. Lanigera has T. julia C. Koch as its only species, and therefore it is its type and its taxonomic position is clear. Leiobulbos contained T. biebersteiniana Schult. & Schult. f and T. thirkeana C. Koch, a synonym of the first. If this ranking as section is accepted, Leiobulbos would be the correct name here, which obscure name would replace the more familiar Sylvestres. It therefore seemed prudent to regard it as unranked.

Tulipasubgen.Orithyia (D. Don) Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 277. (1874, “1875”).

Baker, Gard. Chron. n.s. 19: 626. (1883); ibid. 20: 266. (1883); Engl. in Engl. and Prantl, Nat. Pfl.-Fam. II, 5: 62 (1889), isonym. ≡ Orithyia D. Don in Sweet, Brit. Fl. Gard. ed. 1., 7 ≡ ed. 2, 3: t. 336. (1836). ≡ Tulipa sect. Orithyia (D. Don) Baill., Hist. Pl. 12: 463. (1894); Vved., Fl. USSR 4: 362. (1935) (Engl. transl.: 279. 1968), isonym.—Type: Tulipa uniflora (L.) Besser ex Baker [Orithyia uniflora (L.) D. Don], designated by Baker (1883a).

TulipaL. subgen.Tulipa

Tulipa L. sect. Tulipa—Lectotype: Tulipa gesneriana L., designated by implication by Rafinesque (1837). All other infrageneric combinations based on this lectotype published after that date are invalid, as autonyms are required (Art. 22.2):

Tulipa sect. Dulipanum Spigel. ex Reboul, Giorn. Bot. Ital. 2: 60. (1847). ≡ Dulipanum Spigel., Isag. Rem Herb.: 52, 54. (1606), nom. pre-Linn. inval. ≡ Tulipa subgen. Eutulipa Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 276. (1874, “1875”) (also Art. 21.3). ≡ Tulipa § Leiostemones Boiss., Fl. Or. 5: 191. (1882). ≡ Tulipa sect. Leiostemones Boiss. ex Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 243. (1884) (reprint: 48). ≡ Tulipa § Gesnerianae Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 276. (1874, “1875’). ≡ Tulipa sect. Gesnerianae Baker, Gard. Chron. n.s. 19: 626, 691, 788. (1883); ibid. 20: 11, 71. (1883). ≡ Tulipa subsect. Gesnerianae A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 93. 1940.

Tulipasect.Lanatae(VanRaamsd.) Zonn. comb.nov.

Tulipa ser. Lanatae van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 40 (1995).—Type: Tulipa lanata Regel (Art. 22.6).

Tulipasect.Kolpakowskianae Van Raamsd. ex Zonn. & Veldk., sect.nov.

Plantae statura moderata, bulbis parvis tunicis intra sparsissime ad copiose pilosis, foliis angustis numerosis, caulibus floribus solitariis vel pluribus e caule propria ad soli planum enascentibus, tepalis intra luteis exta rubro-diffusis vel pallide rubris sine macula.—Type: Tulipa kolpakowskiana Regel. (= Tulipa altaica Pall. ex Spreng.).

Plants of a moderate size, bulbs small, tunics inside very sparsely to densely hairy, leaves narrow, numerous, flowers solitary to many, each with its own stem seemingly originating from the surface of the soil, tepals inside yellow, outside suffused red or pale red without a macula.

Tulipa subsect. Kolpakowskianae A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 135. (1940), nom. inval., anglice. ≡ Tulipa sect. Kolpakowskianae van Raamsd., in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 38. (1995), nom. inval., anglice.

Note: The latter authors lectotypified it with Tulipa kolpakowskiana, but because of Art. 22.6 that action was unnecessary (and also because their names were invalid, as there was only a description in English).

Tulipasect.Multiflorae (Van Raamsd.) Zonn., comb.nov.

Tulipa ser. Multiflorae van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 159: 41. (1995).—Type: Tulipa praestans Hoog.

Tulipa ser. Glabrae van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 159: 41. (1995).—Type: Tulipa subpraestans Vved.

Tulipasect.Spiranthera Vved. {in Kom., FL.USSR 4: 351(1935), nom inval.(Art 36.1) ex Zonn. & Veldk., sect.nov.

Tunicae papyraceae intus sparse ad basin et ad apicem pubescentes, tepala praecipue alba lutave, filamenta glabra, antherae gradatim e apice ad basin dehiscentes denique contortae, stigmata subsessilia. Typus: Tulipa kaufmanniana Regel.

{in Kom., FL.USSR 4: 351(1935), nom invalid.(Aert 36.1)

Tunics papyraceous, inside sparsely hairy at the base and at the tip. Tepals mainly white or yellow, but also red. Filaments glabrous. Anthers often opening gradually from apex to base, ultimately contorted. Stigmas subsessile.

Tulipa L. sect. Spiranthera Vved. in Kom., Fl. USSR 4: 351. 1935 (transl.: 269. 1968), nom. inval, russice (anglice).  Tulipa ser. Spiranthera van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 41. 1995, nom inval., anglice. Typus: Tulipa kaufmanniana Regel.

Tulipa sect. Tulipa

Tulipa § Scabriscapae Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 277. (1874, “1875”).—Lectotype: T. suaveolens Roth, designated here.

Tulipa § Ambiguae Levier, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel 14: 266. (1884) (reprint: 71).—Lectotype: Tulipa schrenkii Regel, designated here.

Tulipa ser. Luteo-apiculatae van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 159: 41. (1995).—Type: Tulipa sosnovskyi Achv & Mirzoeva.

Tulipa subsect. Eichleres A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 123. (1940), nom. inval., anglice. ≡ Tulipa sect. Eichleres van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 39. (1995), nom. inval., anglice. Tulipa ser. Eichleres van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 40. (1995), nom. inval., anglice, sine basion.—Voucher: Tulipa eichleri Regel.

Note: van Raamsdonk & De Vries lectotypified ser. Eichleres with Tulipa eichleri, but because of Art. 22.6 that action has no effect. Marais (1980: 259) had T. eichleri (1874) as a synonym of T. undulatifolia Boiss. (1844), while Mabberley (1982) suggested that Tulipa persica (Lindl.) Sweet (1830) might be the correct name. We have not studied this.

Tulipasect.Tulipanum Reboul, Giorn. Bot. Ital. 2: 60. (1847).

Tulipanum Spigel., Isag. Rem Herb.: 52, 54. (1606), nom. pre-Linn. inval. ≡ Tulipa § Eriobulbae Baker, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 14: 276. (1874; “Eriobulbi, 1875”). ≡ Tulipa sect. Eriobulbae (Baker) Baker, Gard. Chron. n.s. 19: 626, 668. (1883), nom. superfl. ≡ Tulipa subsect. Oculus-solis A.D. Hall, Gen. Tulipa: 104. (1940). ≡ Tulipa ser. Tulipanum (Spigel. ex Reboul) van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 39. (1995). See note.—Lectotype: Tulipa oculus-solis St.-Amans, nom. inval. (= Tulipa agenensis DC.), designated by Baker (1883b).

Tulipa § Lanigera C. Koch, Linnaea 22: 225. (1849).—Type: Tulipa julia C. Koch. See note under subgen. Eriostemones sect. Sylvestres.

Tulipa ser. Aureofasciatae van Raamsd. in van Raamsd. & T. de Vries, Pl. Syst. Evol 195: 39. (1995).—Type: Tulipa praecox Ten., non Cav. (= T. agenensis DC), see note.

Notes: Apparently series Tulipanum was coined in the mistaken idea that an autonym without an author’s name would be required. Autonyms can only be required when the type of the genus is included (Art. 22.1).

According to Marais (1980: 257) T. oculus-solis Saint-Amans and de Boudon (1804), the exact date of publication unknown) would be a nomen nudum. It isn’t, but it was invalidly published for another reason. Saint-Amans proposed the name (p. 78) in a nearly 4-page discussion, with references to previous descriptions, and a description by himself. However, in the end he concluded that the plant would represent one of the numerous varieties of the “tulipe gesnériène”, that is T. gesneriana L.; thus he did not accept the specific combination (Art. 34.1.a).

Tulipa agenensis DC. in Redouté is of Feb 1804, and therefore is most likely earlier than T. oculus-solis Saint-Amans and de Boudon (1804). de Candolle (1805) accepted T. oculus-solis and thus validated it. However, he cited the older Tulipa agenensis in its synonymy, so T. oculus-solis is an illegitimate name.

Kerguélen (1999) gives as place of publication St.-Amans, Fl. Agenaise: 145. 1821, but does not cite the 1804 publication and regards it as a synonym of T. agenensis. Here reference is also made to T. acutiflora Poiret (1808), a superfluous name.

The checklist for Tulipa species by Govaerts (2008) accepted T. agenensis and has T. oculus-solis St.-Amans as a synonym and, incorrectly, as a nomen nudum.

Tulipa praecox Tenore (1811) is a later homonym of T. praecox Cavanilles (1803) and is said to be widespread in southern Europe (e.g. Gray-Wilson and Matthews 1980, Govaerts 2008). As it is considered not to be different from T. agenensis, the correct name is T. agenensis DC (1804).

Tulipasect.Vinistriatae (Van Raamsd.) Zonn., stat&comb.nov.

Tulipa ser. Vinistriatae van Raamsd., Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 40. 1995.—Type: Tulipa greigii Regel.

Tulipa ser. Undulatae van Raamsd., Pl. Syst. Evol. 195: 40. 1995.Type: Tulipa alberti Regel (1 –i- is correct (Rec.60.C.2) (Acta Hort. Petrop. 5: 264. 1877; Gartenfl. 26: 257, t. 912. Jul 1877).

A newinfraspecificcombination

Tulipaorphanidea Boiss. ex Heldr. subsp.doerfleri (Gand.) Zonn., comb.etstat.nov. ≡ Tulipa doerfleri Gand., Fl. Cretica 102. (1916). already published in Pl. Syst. Evol. 281: 244. 2009, fide IPNI.

Note. The Flora cretica is a lithographed manuscript and is a valid publication (Art. 30.2; the work is not listed in Appendix V of the ICBN on the Opera utique oppressa for Gandoger).

Validation ofTulipa lemmersiiZonn., A. Peterse, J. de Groot

Tulipa lemmersii Zonn., A.. Peterse, J. de Groot. Plant Systematics and Evolution (2009) 281: 244.

Type:Mashad Pass,Chimkent, Kazakhstan (2007) cult. A.. Peterse. s.n. L 0822655 (Holotype L.)

Excluded name

TulipaL.sect.Stellaster (Heist. ex Fabr.) Baill., Hist. Pl. 12: 463. (1894).

Stellaster Heist. [Syst. Pl. General.: 19. (1748). nom. pre-Linn., inval.] ex Fabr., Enum., ed. 2: 23. (1763). nom. superfl. pro Scilla L. ≡ Stellaris Fabr., Enum.Pl.: 13. (1759). Idem.—Lectotype: Scilla bifolia L., designated by Hitchcock (1929).

Acknowledgements

Dr. R.M. Baldini (FI) again was kind enough to help with the literature available at his magnificent institute. Ms. F. Ainsworth in vain tried to find ancient publications in the rich library of K. Mr. WLA Hetterscheid (WAG) advised on horticultural nomenclature.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity-NaturalisSection National Herbarium of the Netherlands, Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands