Cistus × varius Pourr.
[C. monspeliensis L. × C. salviifolius L.]
(Fig. 5)
Histoire et Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Inscriptions et Belles Lettres de Toulouse 3: 312 (Pourret 1788), pro sp. — C. albidus subsp. varius (Pourr.) Nyman, Conspectus Florae Europaeae: 70 (Nyman 1878).
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 & MontserratRecoder 1993; Dobignard & Chatelain 2011; Tison & de Foucault 2014; POWO 2024).
Publication Date: 2026-06-12