The enigmatic Salvia tingitana

19 Pages·2008·0.6 MB·English

Willdenowia38–2008 41
MICHAELJ.Y.FOLEY,IANC.HEDGE &MICHAELMÖLLER
The enigmatic Salvia tingitana (Lamiaceae): a case study in history,
taxonomy and cytology
Abstract
Foley,M.J.Y.,Hedge,I.C.&Möller,M.:TheenigmaticSalviatingitana(Lamiaceae):acase
studyinhistory,taxonomyandcytology.–Willdenowia38:41-59.–ISSN0511-9618;©2008
BGBMBerlin-Dahlem.
doi:10.3372/wi.38.38102(availableviahttp://dx.doi.org/)
Salviatingitanahasbeenincultivationsinceatleasttheendoftheseventeenthcentury,butits
provenance has for long been uncertain and its taxonomic interpretation confused. With new
evidencethathascometolight,amorecompletebotanicalandhorticulturalhistoryoftheplantis
presented.Itcoversaperiodofalmost400years.Uncertainties,however,stillremainaboutits
originalintroduction;todaytheonlycertainknownwildlocalityisinSaudiArabia.Achronological
historyofitstreatmentandmisinterpretationsbyvariousauthorsoverthecenturiesisgiven.Based
oncurrentknowledge,thereisanup-dateddescriptionanddiscussionofitsaffinities.Aninvestigation
intoitscytologygaveachromosomenumberof2n=42,veryunusualinthegenus,thesignificance
of which is discussed. Examination of the mucilage produced by nutlets on wetting was also
revealingperseandshoweddifferencesfrommucilageproducedbyitsputativeallies.
Additionalkeywords:Labiatae,Europeanbotanicgardens,pre-Linnaeanbotany,karyology,muci-
lage.
Introduction
The name Salvia tingitana was formed and validated by Andreas Ernest Etlinger in 1777, al-
thoughtheplanttowhichitrefershadbeenknownforatleasteightyyearsbeforethenandpossi-
blyasfarbackastheearly1600s.Inthosedays,itwascultivatedingardensbutitsoriginwas
unknownoruncertainand,untilveryrecently,nogatheringsfromthewildappeartohavebeen
madeorareextant.Today,itisnotuncommonlygrownasanornamentalindifferentpartsofthe
world. Uncertainties about its horticultural history combined with the discovery of a new con-
tender for typifying the name prompted a re-investigation of its history going back to pre-Lin-
naeannames,earlyliteratureandillustrations.AlthoughtheepithetimpliesaNAfricanorigin,
thereisnowevidencethatitcameoriginallyfromtheArabianregionandwascultivatedforits
aromaticpropertiesintheearlyphysicgardensofEuropesuchasthoseofPadua,Turinandlater,
42 Foley&al.:Salviatingitana:history,taxonomyandcytology
Fig.1.FromAlpino(1640),theearliestillustrationtracedwhichmaybeattributabletoSalviatingitana.
Willdenowia38–2008 43
Paris.Overitslongbotanicalhistory,ithasbeenconfusedwithseveralotherspecieswithvari-
ous authors interpreting it differently. This case study, in interpreting pre-and post-Linnaean
names,hasemphasisedtheparamountimportanceofherbariumspecimensinthecorrectapplica-
tionofnames,theconfusionthatcanarisefromtheirmisinterpretation,thedifficultiesinidenti-
fyingearlyillustrationsandinrelatingearlydiscursiveLatindescriptionstolaternames.
In the following account herbarium acronyms follow Holmgren & Holmgren (1998-); her-
bariaconsulted:E,K,MPU,P,RIY.
AchronologicaltaxonomichistoryofSalviatingitana
Fromthe17thcenturytothepresentday,Salviatingitanaisrepresentedbyscatteredreferences
in botanical and horticultural literature together with only a few reliable herbarium specimens.
Toappreciatethecomplexandcontortedhistoricalbackgroundtothisplant,itisusefultofollow
thesequenceofitstreatmentbyvariousauthorsoverthepastthreecenturiesormore.
Alpinodescribedandillustrated(Fig.1)inhisposthumouslypublishedDePlantisExoticis
Libri Duo (1627: 253, 1640: 71) a plant at the Padua Botanical Garden to which he gave the
name “Marum aegyptium”. It was a “plant coming from dry places in Egypt” [nascitur in
Aegypti locis siccis & squalidis] with “flores albi, sclareae seu herbas Sancti Ioannis floribus
quam simili”.There isalso mention of itspharmaceutical properties,Alpino being particularly
interestedinthemedicinalpropertiesofplants.ThereferencetoStJohnisofspecialinterestin
that“erbaSanGiovanni”isoneoftheItaliancommonnamesforSalviasclareaL.,aspeciesof-
tenconfusedwithS.tingitana.ThereasonforconsideringAlpino’splanttobethesameasS.tin-
gitana, stems from Lamarck (1805: 600) who listed the name [as “an marum agyptiacum?”]
amongthesynonymsofhisS.foetida(=S.tingitana).
In1690Rivinuspublishedanillustrationtitled“Horminumtingitanum”(Rivinus1690:t.62,
seeFig.2)butinthetextofhisOrdoPlantarumthenameisabsent.Thisistheearliesttracedref-
erencetoaSalviawiththeepithettingitana.
Morison’sspecieswiththepolynomial“Horminumsalviafoliolanuginoso”(Morison1699:
392,t.16,fig.3)refersbacktoAlpino’splantandgivesAleppoasitsorigin[“exAleppoquoque
delatumest”];thewoodcutisverysimilartothatofAlpino.Intheabsenceofanycomplementary
specimens, it is impossible to accurately identify the plants that Alpino and Morison described
andillustrated,butfromtheavailableevidenceitislikelythatAlpino’sandMorison’snamesre-
fertothesametaxonandthepossibilitythatthisisS.foetida/tingitanacannotbeexcluded.
In 1700, Tournefort described what we believe to be Salvia tingitana as “Sclarea tingitana
foetidissimahirsuta,florealbo”(Tournefort1700:179)butgavenofurtherinformationorcom-
mentotherthan“habitatinAfrica”.Aspecimen(Fig.3),theearliestknown,isintheTournefort
herbarium (at P, specimen no. 1081, microfiche no. 53) and bears the annotation “Sclarea
tingitana foetidiss. Flore dilute coeruleo variegato. La fleur est d’ un bleu fort pale - toute la
plantefutfort”.ItappearstobegoodS.tingitanadespitethecommentaboutflowercolour(not
normally blue) but no information about its provenance or collection date is given. Tournefort
wasinMadrid,SevilleandCadizduringtheperiodSeptember-November1688.Hewasdeputy
ofGuy-CrescentFagonattheJardinduRoiinParisandhistravelsinIberiawere,inpart,toen-
richtheircollectionswithplantsfromSpainandPortugal.Itislikelyfromtheepithettingitana
(i.e.Tanger)thathebelievedtheplantwasfromNAfrica.
Arduino(1759:x,t.1),likeProsperoAlpinoandhissonAlpinoAlpinoprefectofthePadua
BotanicGarden,describedaspeciescultivatedinthisgardenandconsideredtobenew.Hegave
itthepolynomial“Salviacaulefruticoso,foliisovato-sinuatis,crenatis,rugosis,hirsutis”.From
the evidence of his discussion and his description complemented by an illustration, we believe
thatthisisthefirstfulldescriptionoftheplantthenameofwhichwasvalidated18yearslaterby
Etlinger.PossiblecorroborationofthisdeductionisthepresenceofaspecimenintheLinnaean
herbarium(no.42.27atLINN),onwhichiswritten(possiblybyLinnaeuswithwhomhecorre-
sponded)“Ard”(i.e.Arduino).WebelievethisplanttobeofSalviatingitanadespiteitbeingla-
44 Foley&al.:Salviatingitana:history,taxonomyandcytology
Fig.2.Theexclusiveplateof“Horminumtingitanum”(Rivinus1690:t.62)inacopyheldattheUniver-
sitätsbibliothekErlangen-Nürnberg;tothisplateEtlinger(1777)referredintheoriginaldescriptionofSalvia
tingitana.
Willdenowia38–2008 45
Fig.3.Tournefort’sspecimen(atP),thedesignatedlectotypeofSalviatingitana.
46 Foley&al.:Salviatingitana:history,taxonomyandcytology
belledasS.disermas.Someyearslater,Allioni(1774:55)referredtothesameplantgrowingat
the Turin botanical garden, giving as a footnote “Haec est Salvia villosa & viscosa foliis
lanceolato-ovatisversuspetiolatumangulatis”andthatithadbeennotedbyArduinoin1759al-
thoughatthattimeAllioniwasnotawareofArduino’spublication.
TheinitialvaliddescriptionofSalviatingitanawasmadebyEtlinger(1777)inhisCommen-
tatio Botanico-Medica de Salvia.He gave a brief description of S.tingitana and cited two pre-
Linnaean elements: Tournefort (1700) and Rivinus’ illustration (Rivinus 1690: t. 62). Etlinger
referredtothelatteras“bon.sedmalespinascalycisneglexitsculptor”,thusconsideringittobe
a good likeness except for the calyx spines not agreeing with his own description “spinosis
sulcatis”.Itshabitatwasgivenas“inAfrica”.Healsocommented“foliaS.disermas,sedlatiora,
acuta”and“verticilli,bracteaeetcalycesS.spinosae,sedhibrevioresadlimbumusqueprofundius
sulcati,breviusmucronati”.AlthoughEtlingermadenoreferenceheretotheearlierpublications
ofArduinoortoAllioni,helistedthemas“synonyms”ofS.disermasonthefollowingpage.
In the same publication, Etlinger also described Salvia sclarea L., which clearly indicated
thatheregardeditasdistinctfromS.tingitana.Therehasbeenconsiderablelaterconfusionbe-
tweenthetwospecies,whichisdiscussedsubsequently.
ThereisacomplicationregardingEtlinger’scitationoftheRivinusplate,copiesofthatpub-
licationbeingveryscarcenowadaysandmostlyheldinmajorlibraries.Ourexaminationofthose
heldatvariousinstitutionsfailedtoreveal“Horminumtingitanum”atplate62orelsewhere,and
it soon became apparent that plate pagination varied from publication to publication. This pre-
sumably resulted from the pages having been left unbound subsequent to publication and then
numberedbyhandlater(orevenleftunnumbered).ChecksatErlangenrevealedthesamesitua-
tionasattheotherinstitutionsregardingtheirtwomainlibrarycopies.However,athirddormant
copy held in storage did have the correctly numbered relevant plate (Fig. 2). This may be the
verycopyfromwhichEtlingerworkedandthepagesofwhichheprobablynumberedhimself.It
canbearguedontechnicalgroundsthatthisRivinus’plateisastrongercandidateforconsider-
ation as the lectotype of Salvia tingitana than is Tournefort’s herbarium specimen (P) despite
therebeingnodoubtaboutthecorrectidentityofthespecimenbutsomedoubtabouttheidentity
oftheRivinusplate.UnfortunatelyRivinus’herbariumnolongerexistssothatthereisnospeci-
men available to support his illustration. However, the assessment of the identity of any 17th
century copper engraving especially in a genus with over 100 species in the Mediterranean re-
gionis,atbest,fraughtwithuncertainty.
WearethereforeuncertainwhatRivinus’platerepresentsandthefactthat,otherthantheep-
ithet,thereisnodescriptionatalloranindicationofitsprovenancemakesitsidentityevenmore
uncertain.Itwouldseemtofallinthecategoryof“...isdemonstrablyambiguousandcannotbe
criticallyidentifiedforpurposesofthepreciseapplicationofthenameofthetaxon”(Code,Art.
9.7,McNeill&al.2006).Fromitsfacies,theplatecouldrepresentSalviatingitanabutitcould
alsobeanotherspecieswithastraightcorollatubesuchasS.palaestinaBenth.orS.spinosaL.;
theleavesareverysimilartoS.virgataJacq.Ifthedrawingofthestraightcorollatubeiscorrect,
itisnotS.sclarea.ShortlyafterEtlinger’spublication,Murray(1778:335)alsomadereference
toS.tingitanaandgaveadescriptionandsynonyms.Roth(1787:25),anexactcontemporaryof
Etlinger at Erlangen, may also have been describing the same plant, although his description
doesnotagreewellwithtrueS.tingitana,asneitherdoesthatofMurray.
Lamarck (1791: 69), presumably unaware of Etlinger’s Salvia tingitana, published his new
speciesS.foetida:“exOriente.Plantapilosa,odoregravi,fl.albilabioinferioreluteolo”andin-
dicatedittobeashrub.Hisdescription,inFrench,includes“lieunat.leLevant;odeurforte;elle
a des rapport avec la sclarée”. Why the Levant (i.e. E Mediterranean) was given as its native
homeisunknown.Thecorrespondingherbariumspecimen(P-LA)agreeswellwithS.tingitana.
IntheThunbergherbariuminUppsala(UPS),therearetwospecimensunderthisname(no.574
&575),buttheyareofsuchpoorqualitythatwearenotsurewhattheyrepresent.Notlongafter-
wards, S. foetida was correctly recognised, e.g., by Willdenow (1809: 42) as a synonym of S.
tingitana.
Willdenowia38–2008 47
Fromaroundtheturnoftheeighteenthcentury,Salviatingitanabecamereferredtomorefre-
quently. Willdenow (1797: 147) had seen the living plant (as “v.v.”), presumably at the Berlin
Botanic Garden, and considered that it was very similar to S. spinosa but had a woody stem,
cordate,erose-dentate,rugoseleaves,ciliatebracts,andthattheplantwasveryfoetidandcame
from“Africa”.Sadly,thereisnocomplementaryspecimeninhisherbarium(B-W).Desfontaines
(1798:24),inhisFloraAtlanticacitedS.foetidaLam.:"totaplantaodoremgravissimumspirat.
Habitat in agro Tunetano" and gave the symbol for a shrub. There is a good specimen in
Desfontaines’ herbarium in P-Desf. and it is probably correct to assume that the specimen had
beencultivatedinParisattheJardinduRoi,thenalready,duetotheFrenchRevolutionrenam-
ing,theJardindesPlantes.
Lamarck(1805:600)againlisted“Salviafetida[sic]Lam.”(i.e.S.tingitana)withfullsyn-
onymy,descriptionandnotes:“CetteespèceadesraportsavecleSalviasclareaparlagrandeur,
laformedelesfeuilles,lalargeurdesesbractées,&danstoutsonensemble.Cetteplantecrôit
naturellentdansleLevantetenBarbarie.OnlacultivéauJardindesPlantesdeParis[withsym-
bolforshrub]v.v.”Asmentionedatthestartofthissection,Lamarckcitedamongthesynonyms
alsoAlpino'snameas“AnmarumagyptiacumAlp.?”
FurtherreferencestoSalviatingitanaaboutthistimeincludePersoon(1805:28,no.82),who
recordeditforNAfricaandnoteditaspossessingafoetidodour.HealsolistedS.foetidaDesf.
[nonLam.]“inagroTunetano[Tunis]”withbothentrieshavingthesymbolforwoodiness.Vahl
(1804-05:274)gaveafulldescriptionofS.tingitanaandalsodescribedthenewspecies,S.prae-
coxVahlandS.coarctataVahl.Theformer,describedfrom“Africaboreali”,VahlrelatedtoS.
tingitana, but S. praecox, as Bentham (1848) stated, is probably a synonym of S. spinosa, al-
thoughthereisnorelevantspecimenintheVahlherbariuminCjudgedfromthemicroficheedi-
tion. The latter, S. coarctata, Vahl related to S. argentea L., a species surely distant from S.
tingitana.EventhoughBentham(1832-36)hadpreviouslyconsideredS.coarctatatobeasyn-
onymofS.tingitana,thecorresponding,farfromideal,specimenintheVahlherbariuminCis
notatalllikeS.tingitanabutmoresimilartotheEMediterraneanS.palaestina.Later,Bentham
(1848)inhisdiscussionaboutS.argenteaalsonotedsomesimilaritieswithS.tingitana.
Vahl (1804-05) also added another species name that comes into the convoluted history of
Salviatingitana.InhiscommentsonLinnaeus’S.disermas,hewrote“AnS.disermasLin.Mant.
318.eademacS.tingitanaEtling?”S.disermas hasalsobeenmisappliedanditsdistributionva-
riouslygivenasSyria,Greece,Byzantium [Istanbul].The meaningofthe epithet,whichmight
giveaclueastotheidentityofthespecies,isalsouncertain:Donn&Don(1845:19)equatedit
with"long-spiked",butitisprobablethatthisinterpretationwasbasedontheknowledgeofthe
plant rather than on its correct etymology. Apparently it was Bentham (1832-36) who first
pointed out that S. disermas based on the specimen no. 42.26 in the Linnaean herbarium (at
LINN) was in fact not from the Mediterranean region but a native of southern Africa (Hedge
1974).AnotherspecimenlabelledasS.disermasintheLinnaeanherbarium(no.42.27atLINN)
is certainly wrongly named. It was later annotated as “non disermas” by J. E. Smith (Savage
1945: 5). The specimen has “Ard.” (= Arduino) hand-written in small letters at its side (see
above);inouropinion,itisS.tingitanaandnotS.disermasaslistedbyWilliams(1890).
Other authors about this time who briefly referred to Salvia tingitana or S. foetida include
Willdenow (1809: 42), Candolle (1813) and Desfontaines (1815: 67). Bentham (1832-36: 225,
718) related S.tingitana (S.foetida and S.coarctata) “in Afr.Bor.Agro Tunet.” toS.spinosa.
Forbes(1833)inhiscataloguedescribeditascomingfromBarbary.Don(1838:729)gaveafull
descriptionbutthismaynotbeS.tingitanabecausehissymbolindicatedittobebiennialandhe
alsodescribeditashavingvillousleaves;itmay,infact,beS.argentea.Thereisalsoafullde-
scription given by Walpers (1844-45: 614). Bentham (1848: 282) described S. tingitana as
“foliis...villosis;cauleherbaceo”whichagainisnotafeatureofS.tingitana.Thelabelsofthe
tworelevantherbariumspecimens(microficheG-DC)havelittleinformationonthemandboth
specimensarelessthanideal.OneisverysimilartoS.sclarea(thatnameiswrittenonthesheet)
andtheothermightalsobethesame.Benthammay,infact,havebeenoneofthesourcesofsub-
sequentmisapplicationofthenameS.tingitanaanditsconfusionwithS.sclarea.S.tingitanais
48 Foley&al.:Salviatingitana:history,taxonomyandcytology
alsoreferredtobyBall(1877-78:616)andLoudon(1880:24).Bonnet&Barratte (1896:333-
334),intheirinformativediscussiononthedistributionandoriginofS.tingitana,suggestedthat
TournefortcollectedseedintheprovinceofCadiz,Spain,in1688-89,andthattheplantwassub-
sequentlygrownattheJardinduRoiinParis.TheyemphasisedthatnowildcollectionsfromN
Africawerecurrentlyknown,asisstilltruetoday.Henriques(1890,1898)gaveacomprehensive
account of Tournefort’s Iberian travels and listed the plants he collected (both with Tourne-
fortian and equivalent binomial names) but none listed could be S. tingitana. These lists, how-
ever,appeartoreferonlytonative,notcultivated,plants.
Aspecimenfrom“Hab.circàGades[Cadiz]”,withoutfurtherdetail,wascitedbyWebbinhis
‘IterHispaniense’(Webb1838)asSalviatingitana.Thereisnoexactlycorrespondingspecimen
intheWebbherbarium(FI-W),butno.148512hasthelabel‘SalviafoetidaLam.’[laterchanged
toS.tingitana]; alsoonthe label is“Herb.Cabr.”.ThisreferstoAntonioCabrera (1762-1827),
naturalistinCadiz,whoseherbarium,forthemostpart,wenttohisfriendJ.B.Chape,aSpanish
professorofNaturalHistoryand‘boticario’(apothecary)inCadiz.ThismightimplythatCabrera
wasinterestedinthedomainofmedicinalplants.WhatthelinkwaswithWebbisunknown.
In recent times, there are fewer references to Salvia tingitana although it is discussed by
Hedge(1974).ThedescriptionandlinedrawingbyValdés&al.(1987:419)ofS.tingitanagives
everyimpressionofitbeingS.argentea.Alziar(1993)possiblyfollowingRosúa(1988)citedS.
tingitanaasasynonymofS.sclarea.
MrsSheilaCollenettewho,inwesternSaudiArabia,madetheonlycertainwildcollections,
published good photographs of Salvia tingitana under the name “S. sp. nov. aff. S. dominica”
(Collenette1999:461).Hertwospecimens,collectedfromthesamelocality,i.e.HemaFiqra,72
km west of Madinah, in 1989 and 1995, were quoted by Chaudhary & Hedge (2001: 416).
Slightlyearlier,S.tingitanawasdiscussedinsomedetailbySales&Hedge(2000)althoughthey
overlooked the earlier typification of the name made by Rosúa (1988) based upon the same
Tournefortspecimen.Valdés&al.(2002:519)includedS.tingitanaintheircatalogueofplants
ofnorthernMoroccoandgaveaspecieskeyandquotedspecificlocalities,butallknownspeci-
mensthereareapparentlycultivated(S.L.Jury,inlitt.,2006).
Historyofcultivationingardens
Although the first recognition and naming of the taxon known today as Salvia tingitana goes
backtothe1600s,itisverydifficulttoestablishwhenitwasfirstcultivatedingardensandin-
deed why, although its strong aroma and possible use in medicine may have been the reason.
Possibly,itwasinthePaduaBotanicalGardenintheearly1600s(Alpino1627,1640)andproba-
bly in the same garden in the 1750s (Arduino 1759) and also at that of Turin (Allioni 1774).
Arduino (1759), one time curator (acting prefect, 1757-60) of the garden at Padua, said of this
plant“ThistypeofSalviaisnotanativeanditscountryoforiginisuncertain.Fourorfiveyears
agoitappearedandgrewfromimportedseedsinthegardenatPadua.Ihavebeenunabletofind
adrawingofitoradescriptionanywhere,althoughIhaveassiduouslyconsultedmanyprominent
botanicalwriters.Forthisreason,IhavedecidedtorecorditasanewtypeofSalvia;itseemedto
merittheattentionofallwhostudybotany.Thewholeplantisviscid,piloseandsweetsmelling
...”.[PeregrinaesthaecSalviaespecies,dequeejuspatriacertinihilaffirmarepossum.Quatuor
vel quinque ab hinc annis, e seminibus peregrinis in Horto Patavino nata est atque alta. Ejus
figuram&descriptionemnullibireperirepotui,licetAuctoresmultospraecipuos,quiBotanicem
pertractarunt, diligenter evolverim. Quamobrem eam hic referre statui ut novam Salviae
speciem, quae mihi visa est digna, quae omnibus Botanices studiosis innotesceret. Tota planta
viscida,pilosa&odorataest...]”.Asindicatedintheprevioussection,weconsiderhisplantto
betrueS.tingitana.
EvidenceofitalsobeingcultivatedinParisinthe1760scomesfromtheannotationofaher-
bariumspecimenatP“exhort.r.Paris1765”.Shortlyafterthistime,thereisaparticularlyinter-
estingreferenceinthehistoryofSalviatingitanaandofsagesingeneral.Itisacatalogueofthe
Willdenowia38–2008 49
plantsintheJardinduRoiinParisin1777,i.e.thesameyearthatEtlingerdescribedS.tingitana.
Itisahand-writtenlist(Blaikie1777,unpubl.)ofalltheplantscultivatedthere.Itwascompiled
bytheScottishhorticulturistandbotanistThomasBlaikie(1751-1838).Hewasamuchsought-af-
tergardendesignerwholaidout,orwasinvolvedin,manyofthemajorgardensofaristocratsof
pre-Revolution France. One such garden was the Bagatelle, Bois de Boulogne, of the Compte
d’Artois(subsequentlyCharlesX).Theentry“ChezdeCompted’ArtoisaBagatellepresParis”is
writteninpencilonthecatalogue.Blaikiecompiledthisfascinatingcataloguewithinthespaceof
fourdays!Inhisdiary,Blaikie(1931)notes“Saturday,IthoughtIcoulddonobetterthantowrite
acatalogueoftheplantsattheBottanickgardinstocarrywithmeastherewasnonprintedsoI
spentthewholedaywritinginthegardenaccordingtotheClassesnamesandnumbersinthecol-
lection.Sunday,asthegardenwasnotopenrewrotethelistandwenttoseethedifferentchurches
in Paris”. His catalogue gives a clear picture of the wealth of plants then cultivated. Bearing in
mindthatLinnaeusin1753inSpeciesPlantarumdealtwithanoveralltotalof27speciesofSal-
via, only 24 years later the Jardin du Roi was growing no fewer than 41 species. The garden,
surely one of the richest in Europe at the time, was laid out in 1776 according to the system of
BernarddeJussieuandnotofthatofTournefortorLinnaeus.InBlaikie’slistofSalvias,thespe-
cieslistedaremostlysuffixedwithabbreviationsoftheirdescribingauthors,themajorityofthese
being“L.”,i.e.Linnaeus.Thereisalsoasmallnumberwiththesuffix“j”,presumablyreferringto
deJussieu,suchas“S.coccineaj”,“S.praecoxj”,“S.nubiaj”,and“S.amplexicaulisj”.Theim-
plication is that these were recognised as new but as yet undescribed species. Later, they were
properlydescribedasS.coccineabyEtlinger(1777;alsoJuss.exMurray1778),S.praecoxVahl
(1804-05),S.nubiaMurray(1778)andS.amplexicaulis(Lamarck1791).Ofparticularinterestis
theentryof“S.foetidaj”.Thisspecies,asuresynonymofS.tingitana,wasformallydescribedby
Lamarck14yearslaterin1791.However,fromtheevidenceofBlaikie’slist,Parisbotanistswere
awarein1777oftheexistenceofanewspeciesaboutthesametimeas,maybebefore,Etlinger
describedS.tingitana.ItisofinteresttonotethatS.tingitanawasunknowntoAitonatKew(Hor-
tusKewensis)incultivation.
Subsequently,inthefirstandsecondhalfofthe19thcentury,thereweremanypublishedre-
cordsofSalviatingitanabeingcultivatedindifferentpartsofEurope:France(DumontdeCour-
set1802-05;Desfontaines1804:56;Lamarck1805:600,Candolle1813(inMontpellier)),Berlin
(Willdenow1809:42),Palermo(Tinéo1827:223).MostgavetheplaceoforiginasNAfricaand
indicatedbyasymbolthatitwasashrubbyplant.
InBritain,thefirstrecordisapparentlythatintheninthedition(byMartyn)ofMiller’s‘Gar-
dener’sandBotanist'sDictionary’(Miller[ed.Martyn]1797,re-issued1807:Salviano.60).In
the J. E. Smith herbarium (LINN), there is an 1819 specimen of Salvia tingitana from the
ChelseaPhysickGardeninLondon.Almostuptotheturnofthe19thcenturyitislistedinmany
Englishgardencatalogues(e.g.Sweet1818:7,no.67;Donn1819:10;1826,Forbes1833;Don
1838:729;Donn&Don1845:19;Loudon1880).Aninterestingfacetofitshistoryofcultivation
in Britain is that several of the early catalogues gave, in the tabular format common in those
days, the date of introduction into cultivation as 1796. We have been unable to trace why this
dateiscited.TheonlyrelevanthorticulturalpublicationofthatyearseemstobeDonn’s(1796)
HortusCantabrigiensisbutinitthereisnomentionofS.tingitana(orS.foetida).SoinBritainas
elsewhere,therearenohardfactsaboutitsprovenanceandoriginincultivation.InEuropedur-
ingtheearlypartofthe19thcentury,itappearstohavealwaysbeengrownunderglassasashrub
(Donn&Don1845:19).
In the 20th century, there are far fewer references to the cultivation of Salvia tingitana in
Britain.ItisnotlistedinsuchrecentstandardreferenceworksastheRoyalHorticulturalDictio-
naryofGardening(boththefirstandsecondedition,Compton1992),norintheEuropeanGar-
denFlora(Compton2000),whichdealswithalmostonehundredspeciesofSalvia.
In recent times, throughout the world, there has been a blossoming of interest in growing
salvias,agenusofover900species,especiallythosethatarerareornewtocultivation.Anum-
ber of informative guides and books have been published (Yeo 1995; Sutton 1999; Clebsch
50 Foley&al.:Salviatingitana:history,taxonomyandcytology
2003)andthesealllistSalviatingitana.Itisnownotuncommonlygrowninwarmerpartsofthe
world: USA (especially California), South Africa (Cape Town), Australia (New South Wales)
andintheMediterraneanarea.Wehavenotseenawiderangeofspecimensfromtheseareasand
cannot comment on its variability, but there seems to be some small but not significant differ-
encesinflowercolour:uniformlywhitewithalilacstigma;apaleyellowlabellumandawhite
hood;orayellowishlabellumwithapaleblue-lavenderhood.Interestingly,theTourneforttype
specimenofc.1700hastheannotation“…floredilutecoeruleo”.Manygrowersoftodayremark
on the pale green leaves and the plant’s strong aroma, very pleasing to some, yet too strong or
evendisagreeabletoothers.Inwarmerregions,itisusuallydescribedasanevergreenshrub,in
lesswarmregionsitisreferredtoasadeciduousherbaceousperennial.Whetherallgrowersthat
listS.tingitanahavetherightplantisuncertain;thesameistrueforS.disermasincultivation.
Salviatingitana’srelationto,orconfusionwith,otherspecies
A surprising number of species have been considered to be close allies of Salvia tingitana, or
have been confused with it, since it was described over 230 years ago. Etlinger (1777: xxxv),
Willdenow(1797:147)andBentham(1832-36:225,1848:282)allcommentedonthesimilari-
ties between S. spinosa and S. tingitana. However, the Mediterranean S. spinosa is certainly
quitedistinctfromS.tingitanaandgenerallyiseasilyrecognisedbyitsstraight,c.2cmlongca-
lyx,clearlyspiny-mucronateinfruit.
WhenhedescribedSalviafoetida,Lamarck(1791:69)musthavebeenunawareofEtlinger’s
earlierdissertationonSalvia(Etlinger1777),politicalupheavalsandconflictsthroughoutEurope
atthetimeperhapsbeingthereasonforthis.ThecomplementaryLamarckherbariumspecimenof
S.foetidaagreeswellwithS.tingitanaandthenamewassoonrecognisedbycontemporarybota-
nists as a synonym of it. Confusion with S. argentea (Valdés & al. 1987), S. disermas (Vahl
1804-05), S. praecox (Vahl 1804-05) and S. coarctata (Bentham 1832-36) has already been
brieflydiscussedabove.
MostconfusionwithSalviatingitanaconcernsitsrelationtoS.sclarea.Sinceearliesttimes
(Greek-Roman), this European to SW/Central Asiatic species has been cultivated for culinary
uses,medicinally,foritsaromaticoilsinperfumeryandasaflavouringagentinwinesandver-
mouth. In France it is called “Toute Bonne” for its many virtues; in Britain it is “clary” [clear
eye].ItistheonespeciesthatovertheyearshasbeenmostconfusedwithS.tingitana,especially
inNAfrica.
Rosúa(1988)reviewedtherelationshipbetweenthetwospeciesfromhisknowledgeofthem
inMoroccoandSpain.Heemphasisedtheirsimilaritiesinfoetidodour,indumentumandcorolla
structure;healsonotedthatSalviasclareainSSpainhasthecommonnameof“amaro”andS.
tingitanaiscalled“maro”.HestatedthatS.tingitanawasunknowninthewild[whichwastrue
atthattime],buthadbeenincultivationinArabvillages(e.g.,inMorocco)formanycenturies,
thoughwithoutgivingevidenceforthelatterstatement.HeconcludedthatS.tingitanawasacul-
Table1.SomedifferentialcharactersofSalviatingitana,S.sclareaandS.desoleana.
Salviatingitana S.sclarea S.desoleana
Perennialshrub Biennial/perennialherb Perennialherb
Bractsshorterthancalyx, Bractsclearlylongerthancalyx, Bractsaslongascalyx,
green pink-mauve green-violet
Corollawhite/yellow Corollalilac/white Corollalilac/white
Corollatube±straight, Corollatubestronglyventricose, Corollatubestronglyventricose,
esquamulate squamulate squamulate
Nutlets3×2.2mm Nutlets2×1.5mm Nutletsc.3×2.5mm
2n=42 2n=22 2n=44