(2806) Cistus violaceus Cav., Icon. 2: 38, t. 147. Apr–Nov 1793 [Angiosp.: Cist.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [Spain], “Quart collibus” [Valencia, Quart de les Valls?], Mar 1792, Cavanilles (MA barcode MA 475544). (=) Cistus racemosus L., Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 368; Mant. Pl.: 76. 15–31 Oct 1767, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): Le Monnier in Herb. Linnaeus No. 689.56 (LINN). The Old World genus Helianthemum Mill. (Cistaceae) constitutes a well-supported monophyletic group (Guzmán & Vargas in Organisms Diversity Evol. 9: 83–99. 2009; Aparicio & al. in Taxon 66: 868–885. 2017) that includes about 110 taxa of small herbs or subshrubs (at species and subspecies level). The genus is distributed in Macaronesia, North Africa, Europe, and West and Central Asia, with higher diversity concentrated in the western Mediterranean, and particularly in the Iberian Peninsula (Greuter & al. in Med-Checklist 1. 1984; López González in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 50: 35–63. 1992, in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iberica 3: 365–421. 1993; Arrington & Kubitzki in Kubitzki, Fam. Gen. Vasc. Pl. 5: 62–70. 2003; Parejo-Farnés & al. in Bot. Complut. 37: 83–92. 2013). Some taxa first described by several authors in Cistus L., but currently included in Helianthemum (see, e.g., www.worldfloraonline.org) are taxonomically very complex, and have already been typified (see López González, l.c. 1 992). The name Helianthemum violaceum (Cav.) Pers. (Syn. Pl. 2: 78. 1806) (≡ Cistus violaceus Cav., Icon. 2: 38, t. 147. 1793) is applied to a very variable and diverse species, with a large number of synonyms (López González, l.c. 1993: 377). The species is distributed in the Centre and West of the Mediterranean region: Iberian Peninsula, France, Italy, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco (Maire in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 14: 118–158. 1923; López González, l.c. 1992, 1993; Tison & al., Fl. France Médit.: 982. 2014; http://powo.science.kew.org/). This taxon was traditionally treated under Cistus pilosus L. (Sp. Pl.: 528. 1753) (see Willkomm, Icon. Descr. Pl. Nov. 2: 103–105, 1859, tt. 132–133. 1861, Prodr. Fl. Hispan. 3: 728. 1880; Grosser in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 193 (Heft 14): 70. 1903; Jarvis, Order out of Chaos: 422. 2007). However, the identity of C. pilosus has been misunderstood. A study of this name resulted in a type designation (Ferrer-Gallego in Taxon 70: 208–209. 2021). The identification of the type material prompted a proposal to conserve the name C. laevis Cav. (l.c.: 35) (≡ Fumana laevis (Cav.) Pau in Bol. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 1: 209. 1901) against C. pilosus (Ferrer-Gallego, l.c.). The protologue of Cistus violaceus includes a complete description followed by the provenance “Habitat in collibus aridis regni Valentini, Sagunti, Valldignae”, the phrase “Florebat Maio”, and the comment “Diversus videtur a Cisto splendente D. de Lamarck foliis minimis, neque viridibus et splendentibus, quo ab Apenino Linnaei etiam differt. Calices colore et habitu characterem haud contemnendum suppeditant.” The protologue also includes an excellent illustration of this plant (Cavanilles, l.c.: t. 147), which can be considered original material of C. violaceus. Cavanilles's drawing illustrates a plant with leaves and flowers, with several details of the flowers and fruits (image available at https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/9680/?offset=39#page=134). Among the relevant herbarium material found, in the Cavanilles Herbarium at MA, there are two specimens of this species. The sheet with barcode MA 475544 bears three stems, with leaves and flowers but no fruits, and an envelope with plant fragments. The sheet contains three labels: “Cistus violaceus / in Quart collibus / martio 1792” handwritten by Cavanilles, a printed/typewritten label “Herbarium Horti Botanici Matritensis / Cavanillesii Typi / Cistus violaceus Cav. / Cuarte (Valencia)” (image available at http://161.111.171.57/herbarioV/visorVCat.php?img=MA-01-00475544), and a label inside the envelope “Herbario Ibérico / Jardín Botánico de Madrid / Helianthemum violaceum (Cav.) Pers. / Specim. orig.! / In collibus / Cuarte (Valencia) / III-1792 / Cavanilles” handwritten by Carlos Vicioso. On the other hand, the sheet with barcode MA 475545 also bears three stems, with leaves and flowers but no fruits. This sheet contains three labels, i.e., a printed label “Herbarium Horti Botanici Matritensis / Cavanillesii Typi / Cistus violaceus Cav.”, a handwritten label annotated as “Cist. violaceus Cav. / este me parece ser / el tipo”, and a label inside the envelope “Herbario Ibérico / Jardín Botánico de Madrid / Helianthemum violaceum (Cav.) Pers. / Typus? / Leg. Cavanilles?” handwritten by Carlos Vicioso. Among these two herbarium sheets, the specimen with barcode MA 475545 lacks the author, date of collection, and provenance and therefore cannot be treated as original material. Garilleti (in Fontqueria 38: 151. 1993) indicated that the specimen MA 475544 is a “Posible material tipo” [possible type material]. This author also mentioned that “Quart, en la etiqueta manuscrita de Cavanilles, bien puede ser el actual Cuart de les Valls, localidad sita en los montes de Sagunto” (Quart, on Cavanilles's handwritten label, may well be the current “Cuart de les Valls” [Quart de les Valls in the Valencian language], a provenance located in the Sierra de Sagunto). However, unfortunately, this was not an effective typification, being contrary to Art. 7.11 of the ICN (see Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Garilleti explicitly stated in the introduction to his work: “Nuestro objetivo ha sido estudiar el herbario de A. J. Cavanilles, en ningún caso se ha concretado una lectotipificación de sus táxones” (Our aim was to study the herbarium of A. J. Cavanilles, in no case has materialized a lectotypification of his taxa) (Garilleti, l.c.: 5; Garilleti, pers. comm.). Inadvertent lectotypifications were permitted and common before 2001, usually when a specimen mistakenly believed to be a holotype was by that statement accidentally designated as a lectotype (Art. 9 Ex. 11). However, Garilleti's work is unusual in bearing an explicit statement that the work was to contain no lectotypifications. Further, “Posible material tipo”, as opposed to “type specimen”, could refer to one or multiple syntypes or original material, so does not indicate that a single specimen mentioned was considered to be the type, nor was it “definitely accepted” as the type (Art. 7.11), being only possibly so. Therefore, subsequent authorities have interpreted his mentions of “type material” as not constituting effective typifications (e.g., Knapp in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 64: 195–203. 2007; Buira & al. in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 72: e024. 2015; Iamonico & Valdés in Taxon 66: 441–444. 2017). Because similar mentions were made for over 1000 taxa, if those were to be interpreted as unintended typifications, it would be very disruptive to nomenclature. Therefore, established practice has been followed in considering that no effective type designation has been made. In addition, there is another relevant specimen at MA (with barcode MA 475546) that bears nine stems poorly preserved, an envelope and four labels: “V.V. in monticulis Aranjuez / aprili 1790” handwritten by Cavanilles, “Cistus violaceus Cav. Ic. Vol. 2. Tab. / 147. / ex Aranjuez. / Neé legit.” handwritten by Luis Née, a printed/typewritten label “Herbarium Horti Botanici Matritensis / Cavanillesii Typi. / Cistus violaceus Cav. / Aranjuez (Madrid) / IV-1790” and the fourth (inside the envelope) annotated by Carlos Vicioso “Herbario del Jardín Botánico de Madrid / Helianthemum violaceum (Cav.) / (Cistus violaceus Cav.) / In monticulis / Aranjuez (Madrid) / Leg. – IV–1790 / Leg. – Cavanilles p.p. Nee p.p. / Det. – Cavanilles” (image available at http://161.111.171.57/herbarioV/visorVCat.php?img=MA-01-00475546). Finally, there are three specimens in the herbarium of the Real Colegio Alfonso XII of San Lorenzo de El Escorial at RCAXII (see Carrasco & Perea in Bot. Complut. 38: 155–160. 2014). The sheet RCAXII 4442 bears two plant fragments, with leaves and flowers, and a label handwritten by Cavanilles: “Cistus violaceus / in collibus aridis regni valentini”. The sheet RCAXII 4387 bears a plant fragment with leaves and flowers, and a label annotated by Mariano Lagasca: “Cistus violaceus Cav. / Cav. herb.” Finally, the sheet RCAXII 4389 bears three plant fragments, with leaves and flowers, and a label handwritten by Cavanilles: “Cistus violaceus. Cav. / En Onil y Tibi”. Probably, these three specimens can be considered original material, at least the specimen RCAXII 4389. Although the date of collection does not appear on the label, Cavanilles visited Onil and Tibi in April 1792 (see Cavanilles, Excursions Diary [25 April 1792]. Arjb, Leg. XIII, 7, L. Fol 27v), and the second volume of Cavanilles's Icones was published in October 1793 (see Carrasco & Perea, l.c.). In conclusion, among the original elements, i.e., the illustration included in the protologue by Cavanilles (l.c.: t. 147) and the specimens at MA and RCAXII, I prefer to designate the specimen MA 475544 as the lectotype of the name Cistus violaceus. This specimen bears the most informative material and matches the traditional concept and the current use of the name, showing some diagnostic features (e.g., leaves linear to linear-oblong, green to grey- or white-tomentose above, densely stellate-hairy to grey- or white-tomentose beneath, with slightly to strongly revolute margins; stipules linear, shorter than petioles; sepals 4–8.5 mm, glabrous over the whole outer surface) (see, e.g., Bolòs & Vigo, Fl. Països Catalans 2: 215. 1989; López González, l.c. 1993; Morales Torres, Fl. Vasc. Andalucía Oriental 3: 195. 2009; Mateo & al., Fl. Valentina 2: 251. 2013; Tison & al., l.c.). Concerning the identity of Cistus racemosus, this name was published by Linnaeus (Mant. Pl.: 76. 1767) through a short diagnosis (“CISTUS fruticulosus, foliis lanceolato-linearibus subtus tomentosis”) followed by a synonym from Barrelier (Pl. Gall. Hisp. Ital. Observ.: 52, fig. 293. 1714), “Cistus, lavandulae folio, thyrsoidis”. In the protologue, the geographical provenance was indicated as “Habitat in Hispania.” Linnaeus also provided a comment “Caulis statura Rosmarini, vix tomentosus. Folia linearia S. angusto-lanceolata, subpetiolata, subtus laevissime tomentosa, longiuscula. Stipulae lineares. Racemi longissimi, terminales, secundi. Calyce anguslati, laeves.” The diagnosis was also repeated by Linnaeus (in his Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 368. 1767) as “C. [Cistus] suffruticosus stipitatus, fol. lanceolato-linearibus subtus tomentosus” followed by the reference “Mant. 76 [Mantissa plantarum: 76. 1767]”. Among Linnaeus's original elements of this name, the reference cited in the protologue to Barrelier (l.c.) provided an illustration “Cistus lavendulae folio thyrsoides”, which can be considered original material used by Linnaeus to describe Cistus racemosus. This drawing illustrates a plant with opposite and linear leaves, but no stipules, and with flowers and fruits. However, the interpretation of this illustration is ambiguous, and it cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name (e.g., according to Rouy in Rev. Sci. Nat. (Montpellier), sér. 3, 3: 76. 1883, the drawing can be identified as belonging to H. syriacum (Jacq.) Dum. Cours. [sub H. lavandulaefolium]). There is a relevant specimen at LINN, Herb. Linnaeus No. 689.56 (LINN), that bears a plant with leaves, flowers, and fruits and is annotated as “racemosus” by Linnaeus at the base of the specimen. The sheet contains a label annotated as “46. Cistus / varietas pilosi?” (image available at http://linnean-online.org/6476/). According to the metadata associated with this sheet at the website of The Linnean Collections, the specimen was collected by Louis-Guillaume Le Monnier. Le Monnier, sometimes written as Lemonnier (1717–1799), was a French natural scientist and contributor to the Encyclopédie. I have been unable to locate any further original material in any Linnaean or Linnaean-linked herbaria. Among the located original elements, I selected the specimen No. 689.56 (LINN) as the lectotype of Cistus racemosus. This specimen matches the traditional concept of C. violaceus and the current use of Helianthemum violaceum (see, e.g., Cavanilles, l.c; Willkomm, l.c. 1880; Bolòs & Vigo, l.c.; López González, l.c. 1993; Mateo & al., l.c.; Mateo & Crespo, Claves Ilustr. Fl. Valenciana: 130. 2014). In summary, for the purpose of nomenclatural stability, I propose conservation of Cistus violaceus Cav. against C. racemosus L. under Art. 14.1 of the ICN. Rejection of this proposal would have an undesirable consequence because the name C. violaceus would be included as a heterotypic synonym of the unknown and ignored Linnaean name C. racemosus, and, therefore, the well-known name Helianthemum violaceus, used in a large number of works, would need to be replaced by Helianthemum racemosum (L.) Desf. (Tabl. École Bot.: 153. 1804), a name little known and used. PPFG, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-9302 Thanks to Mats Hjertson (UPS, Museum of Evolution, Botany Section, Uppsala University, Sweden) for the images of the herbarium sheets. Thanks to Ricardo Garilleti (Valencian University, Spain) for his help in the study of the Cavanilles Herbarium. Thanks also to Dr. John Wiersema and Dr. John McNeill for their advice, assistance, and valuable comments that improved this proposal.