(2770) Asparagus draco L. in Loefling, Iter Hispan.: 303. Dec 1758 (‘draconis’) [Angiosp.: Lil. / Asparag.], orth. cons. prop.

Typus: [icon] “Draco” in Clusius, Rar. Pl. Hist.: 1. 1601.

The Canary Islands dragon tree or drago, currently named Dracaena draco (L.) L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 246. 1767) (Asparagaceae), is an iconic and emblematic plant native to the Canary Islands (Gran Canaria, Tenerife), Cape Verde (Santo Antão, Sao Nicolãu, Fogo), and SW Morocco (Anti‐Atlas Mountains). Three subspecies have been recognized: D. draco subsp. draco, only present naturally in the Canary Islands (Almeida Pérez in Bot. Macaronés. 24: 17–38. 2003); D. draco subsp. caboverdeana Marrero Rodr. & R.S. Almeida, distributed in Cape Verde (Marrero & Almeida Perez in Int. J. Geobot. Res. 2: 35–40. 2012), included, however, by some authors in D. draco subsp. draco; and D. draco subsp. ajgal Benabid & Cuzin, only present in SW Morocco (Benabid & Cuzin in Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. 3, Sci. Vie 320: 267–277. 1997).

Asparagus draco L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 451. 1762 [‘Draco’]) is the currently recognized basionym of the widely accepted name Dracaena draco. However, the first reference of Linnaeus to this species was as “Yucca draconis” (in Amoen. Acad. 3: 407. 1756; non Y. draconis L., Sp. Pl.: 319. 1753), a designation not validly published. Although the provenance indicated by Linnaeus in the protologue of A. draco is “Habitat in India orientali”, the name is based on the dragon tree that was cultivated in Portugal and Spain from the Canary Islands, and was illustrated and described in detail by Carolus Clusius (Rar. Stirp. Hisp.: 12. 1576; Rar. Pl. Hist.: 1. 1601). Asparagus draco was lectotypified by Bos (in Regnum Veg. 127: 43. 1993) on Clusius's illustration “Draco” (l.c. 1601: 1) (image available at https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/13800/?offset=7#page=14&) (see also Bos in Agric. Univ. Wageningen Pap. 84: 16. 1984; Ramón‐Laca Menéndez de Luarca in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 55: 422–423, 425–426, fig. 2. 1997; Jarvis, Order out of Chaos: 119, 325, 487. 2007). The Clusius illustration was reproduced from the previously published drawing “Draco arbor” by Clusius (l.c. 1576: 12) (image available at https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/14854/?offset=1#page=12&). According to Whitehead & al. (in Arch. Nat. Hist. 16: 15–32. 1989), this drawing was made by the Flemish Renaissance painter Pieter van der Borcht (1545–1608) commissioned by Clusius, and is preserved at the Jagiellonian Library in Kraków (Poland).

In 1751, at the invitation of Ferdinand VI (1713–1759), Linnaeus sent Pehr Loefling (1729–1756; also Löfling) to Spain (see Loefling, Iter Hispan.: 3–6. 1758). Over the course of the next two years, Loefling studied and collected the Iberian flora. In November 1757, Daniel Scheidenburg (1720–?), chaplain of the Swedish legation in Madrid, had some of Loefling's manuscripts copied and translated into Swedish and sent to Linnaeus (Gunckel Lüer in Revista Univ. (Santiago) 43 [Anales Acad. Chilena Ci. Nat. 22]: 29. 1958; González Bueno & Basante, José Hortega (1703–1761): La peripecia vital e intelectual de un boticario ilustrado: 185. 2015). These materials and the letters that Linnaeus received directly from Loefling are the basis of the posthumous Iter Hispanicum (1758), which summarizes the results of Loefling's botanical work in Portugal and Spain, and also Venezuela (Tellería in Soc. Geogr. Española 28: 116–123. 2007; Dorr & Wiersema in Taxon 59: 1245–1262, 1571–1577. 2010).

On 28 September 1751, Loefling sent to Linnaeus a letter (available at http://linnean-online.org/777772239/ and published in Loefling, l.c.: 13–17) that contained in the margins the first Latin description of the flowers and fruits of an “Arbor draconis” (see Loefling, l.c.: 16). Two years after he found the plant in Lisbon (Alcantara Gardens, Lisbon, Portugal), Loefling (l.c.: 97) saw it again in the garden of the Capuchin Fathers of Cádiz (Spain) and commissioned Pedro Virgilio (1699–1776; a surgeon friend of José Ortega) to send flowers, fruits and a living specimen to Linnaeus (González Bueno & Basante, l.c.). Linnaeus, in the preface to Iter Hispanicum (Loefling, l.c.: Fóretal [xii]), mentions the discovery of the dragon tree as one of the important achievements of Loefling's trip to Spain. Apparently, the material that was studied by Loefling is not preserved (López González in Lagascalia 31: 200. 2011), the species name does not appear in the handwritten list of his herbarium at LINN (see, e.g., letter L0000 from Loefling to Linnaeus [vol. IX: 433, available at http://linnean‐online.org/777772280/]), and we have not found any original material (e.g., at LINN, S, H, SBT, BM).

The name “Asparagus Draconis” appeared as an entry in the 3‐page “Index Plantarum rarior. Hispanicarum” (pp. 302–304) supplied by Linnaeus (see Cecchi & al. in Taxon 63: 1132. 2014), as editor, to Iter Hispanicum. The index entry (Loefling, l.c.: 303) references discussion by Loefling on pp. 15–16, 23, 25, 87–88 [“83”], and 97 where descriptive matter can be found under his entries for “ARBOR DRACONIS” (pp. 15, 87), “Arbor Draconis” (pp. 23, 25) or “ARBOR DRACO” (p. 97), both of which were associated (pp. 15, 97) with Clusius. Although Asparagus draconis L. has been overlooked or ignored, it is a validly published name according to the rules of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018).

Thus, Asparagus draconis is the earliest available name for the species later called “A. Draco” by Linnaeus (l.c. 1762). López González (l.c. 2011: 203) treated these two names as orthographical variants (Art. 61.2) (various spelling forms: nominative: draco and genitive: draconis), taking the “correct name” to be Dracaena draconis (L.) L. (l.c. 1767), based on Asparagus draconis L., thereby accepting that the lectotypification by Bos (l.c. 1993) of the orthographic variant “A. draco” would apply as well to A. draconis. In so doing, López González did not use the term “here designated” or an equivalent (Shenzhen Code Art. 7.11), such that if A. draconis and A. draco are not considered orthographic variants but rather independent names, the former remains untypified.

The question of whether ‘draconis’ and ‘draco’ can be considered orthographic variants may be a debatable one. While one is a noun in the genitive and the other a [nominative] noun in apposition, they represent different inflectional forms of the same Latin third declension noun, derived from the Greek δράκων. Linnaeus's usages in 1758 and 1762 both referenced Clusius's (l.c.) “Arbor draconis” [the tree of the dragon] or “Draco arbor” [the dragon tree]. Curiously, Linnaeus did not cite his earlier usage (or Iter Hispanicum) in the protologue of Asparagus draco, but he did mention Loefling in his comment under A. draco, as he had in conjunction with his earlier usage of “Yucca draconis” (l.c. 1756). So there seems to be no doubt that the orthographies used by Linnaeus both apply to the same plant that, in the absence of any other original material, would have to be typified on the Clusius illustration, as achieved by Bos (l.c. 1993), so interpreted by López González (l.c. 2011), and accepted here.

As orthographic variants of the same name (Art. 61.2), Asparagus draconis predates A. ‘draco’; therefore, the first validly published spelling should be adopted in Dracaena Vand. ex L. (Art. 61.1), and current usage of D. ‘draco’ would need to be corrected (Art. 61.4) as no justification exists under Art. 60 for Linnaeus's correction of his original orthography, the genitive noun ‘draconis’ being perfectly acceptable as a specific epithet (Art. 23.1). However, the spelling D. ‘draconis’ is almost unknown to the taxonomic community, while that of D. ‘draco’ is consistently used for the taxon (e.g., Byström in Acta Horti‐Gotoburgensis 23: 179–214. 1960; Symon in J. Arnold Arbor. 55: 51–58. 1974; López González, Árbol. Arbust. Peníns. Ibér. 1: 1418. 2001; Ruiz de la Torre, Fl. Mayor: 281. 2006; Almeida Pérez, l.c.; Wilkin & al. in Kew Bull. 67: 697–705. 2012; Krawczyszyn & Krawczyszyn in Trees 28: 757–768. 2014; Jura‐Morawiec & Tulik in Flora 213: 1–5. 2015; Nadezhdina & al. in Funct. Pl. Biol. 42: 1092–1105. 2015; Rivas‐Martínez & al. in Int. J. Geobot. Res. 7: 21. 2017; Klimko & al. in Pl. Syst. Evol. 304: 1041–1055. 2018; Rivas‐Martínez & al., Naturalia Cantabricae 8 Especial (3): 116. 2020). A Google Scholar search on 28 July 2020 for the former binomial's orthography returned just 2 references, whereas 2440 were returned for the latter.

For the purpose of nomenclatural stability, we therefore propose conservation of Asparagus draco L. (‘draconis’) with that spelling under Art. 14.11. Rejection of this proposal would have an undesirable consequence because the spelling overwhelmingly in current use, “Dracaena draco”, would need to be replaced by “D. draconis”.

（2770）芦笋德拉科L.在Loefling，Iter项目Hispan：303 1758年12月（ '血竭'） [Angiosp .:律。/天门冬。缺点 支柱。

Typus：[图标]“ Draco”，位于Rar的Clusius。Pl。记录：1. 1601。

加纳利群岛的龙血树或德拉戈（Dragoa draco（L.）L.（Syst。Nat。，ed。12，2：2：246. 1767）（天冬科）是一种原产于加那利群岛（）的标志性植物大加那利岛，特内里费岛），佛得角（圣安东尼奥，圣尼古拉，福戈）和西南摩洛哥（反阿特拉斯山脉）。已经认识到三个亚种：D.德拉科亚种。德拉科，仅自然存在于加那利群岛（Bot。Macaronés的AlmeidaPérez。24：17-38。2003）；D.德拉科亚种 Caboverdeana Marrero Rodr。＆RS Almeida，发行于佛得角（Marrero＆Almeida Perez in Int。J. Geobot。Res。2：35–40。2012），但其中包括D. draco的一些作者亚种 德拉科; 和D.德拉科亚种。ajgal Benabid＆Cuzin，仅在摩洛哥西南部存在（Benabid＆Cuzin在Compt。Rend。Acad。Sci。Paris，Sér。3，Sci。Vie 320：267–277。1997）。

芦笋德拉科L.（Sp。Pl。，ed。2：451。1762 [' Draco ']）是目前公认的广泛使用的名称Dracaena draco的代名词。但是，林奈氏族对该种的首次提及是“丝兰（Yucca draconis） ”（在Amoen。Acad。3：407. 1756；非Y. draconis L.，Sp。Pl . : 319. 1753），该名称未有效发布。 。尽管林奈夫斯（Linnaeus）在A.德拉科（A. draco）的序言中所指的出处是“印度东方人居”，但该名称是基于在加那利群岛的葡萄牙和西班牙种植的龙血树，并由卡洛斯（Carolus）详细说明和描述的。克劳斯（Clusius）（Rar。Stirp。Hisp .: 12. 1576; Rar。Pl.Hist .: 1. 1601）。芦笋德拉科由Bos（在Regnum Veg。127：43. 1993）对克卢修斯的插图“ Draco”（lc 1601：1）进行了电化（图片可在https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/13800/?offset= 7＃page = 14＆）（另请参阅农业大学瓦格宁根大学老板，84：16. 1984;马德里阿纳莱斯花园的拉蒙·拉卡·梅嫩德斯·德·卢阿尔卡，55：422–423，425–426，图2 （1997；贾维斯（Jarvis），《混乱中的秩序》：119，325，487. 2007）。克卢修斯的插图是克卢修斯（lc 1576：12）先前出版的绘画“ Draco arbor”的复制品（图片可在https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/14854/?offset=1#page=12& ）。根据怀特海德等。（在历史记录16：15–32。1989年）中，此图是弗洛芒德文艺复兴时期画家彼得·范·德·波希特（Pieter van der Borcht，1545-1608年）创作的，

1751年，应费迪南德六世（1713–1759）的邀请，林奈夫斯将佩尔·勒夫林（Pehr Loefling）（1729–1756；也是勒夫林）送往西班牙（参见勒夫林，Iter Hispan .: 3–6。1758）。在接下来的两年中，勒夫林研究并收集了伊比利亚植物区系。1757年11月，马德里瑞典使馆的牧师丹尼尔·谢登堡（Daniel Scheidenburg，1720-？）将勒夫林的手稿复制并翻译成瑞典文，并寄给了林奈（Linnaeus，圣地亚哥，Revista Univ。的GunckelLüer）43 [Anales Acad。Chilena Ci。Nat。22]：1958年2月29日；GonzálezBueno＆Basante，何塞·霍特加（JoséHortega，1703–1761年）：《欧洲人的生命中的至关重要的生命：185。2015年》。这些材料和Linnaeus直接从Loefling收到的信件是遗体Iter Hispanicum的基础（1758），总结了Loefling在葡萄牙和西班牙以及委内瑞拉的植物工作的结果（Tellería在Soc。Geogr。Española中28：116–123。2007； Dorr＆Wiersema在塔克辛59：1245–1262，1571-1577 （2010年）。

1751年9月28日，勒夫林（Loefling）向林奈（Linnaeus）发送了一封信（可在http://linnean-online.org/777772239/上找到，并发表在勒夫林（LC）13-13）。 “乔木”的果实（见Loefling，lc：16）。Loefling（lc：97）在里斯本发现植物的第二年（阿尔坎塔拉花园，葡萄牙里斯本），两年后在卡迪斯的卷尾猴父亲的花园里再次看到了它（西班牙），并委托Pedro Virgilio（1696-1776年；外科医生） JoséOrtega的朋友）向Linnaeus（冈萨雷斯·布埃诺和巴桑特，lc）送花，水果和活体标本。Linnaeus，在《西班牙裔Itericum》的序言中（Loefling，lc：Fóretal[xii]）提到龙树的发现是Loefling前往西班牙的重要成就之一。显然，没有保留Loefling研究的材料（LópezGonzález在Lagascalia 31：200。2011），物种名称没有出现在他在LINN的植物标本室的手写清单中（例如，从Loefling到Linnaeus的信件L0000） [第IX卷：433，可在http://linnean-online.org/777772280/]上找到，我们还没有找到任何原始材料（例如，LINN，S，H，SBT，BM）。

名称“芦笋Draconis ”出现在3页的“植物索引索引”中。由Linnaeus提供（参见Cecchi等人，在Taxon 63：1132。2014年），由Iter Hispanicum编辑（第302-304页）。索引条目（Loefling，lc：303）引用了Loefling在第15-16、23、25、87-88 [“ 83”]和97页上的讨论，在其“ ARBOR DRACONIS”条目下可以找到描述性内容（第15页，第87页），“ Arbor Draconis ”（第23、25页）或“ ARBOR DRACO”（第97页），两者均与Clusius相关联（第15、97页）。尽管芦笋龙眼已被忽略或忽略，但根据《深圳法典》（Turland等人，Regnum Veg.159.2018）的规定，它是有效发布的名称。

因此，芦笋是最早由林奈（Linnaeus）（lc 1762）命名为“ A. Draco ”的物种的名称。洛佩斯·冈萨雷斯（LópezGonzález（lc 2011：203）将这两个名称视为正字法变体（第61.2条）（各种拼写形式：主语：draco和genitive：draconis），取“正确名称”为Dracaena draconis（L.）L。 （lc 1767），基于芦笋L.，因此接受Bos（lc 1993）对正字法变体“ A. draco ”的选型也将适用于A. draconis。这样，洛佩斯·冈萨雷斯（LópezGonzález）并未使用“此处指定”一词或同等名称（深圳法规艺术。7.11），因此，如果不将A. draconis和A. draco视为正字法变体，而是将其视为独立名称，则前者仍然没有典型性。

是否可以将“ draconis ”和“ draco ”视为正字法变体这一问题值得商bat。一个是同语中的名词，另一个是并称中的[主语]名词，它们表示源自拉丁语δράκων的同一拉丁第三变位名词的不同变形形式。Linnaeus在1758年和1762年的用法都引用了克留修斯（lc）的“龙树”（Arbor draconis）或“龙树”（Draco arbor）。奇怪的是，林奈没有在芦笋的前言中引用他的较早用法（或Iter Hispanicum），但他在A.德拉科的评论中确实提到了Loefling ，因为他与他较早使用的“丝兰draconis”一起（lc 1756）。因此，毫无疑问，林奈夫斯所使用的拼字法都适用于同一家工厂，在没有任何其他原始材料的情况下，必须像克劳斯（Boss）所实现的那样，以克卢修斯的插图为代表（lc 1993），由LópezGonzález（lc 2011）解释，并在此处接受。

作为同名的正字法变体（第61.2条），芦笋比A早。'德拉科'; 因此，Dracaena Vand应该采用第一个有效发布的拼写。L.（第61.1条），以及D的当前用法。“德拉科”需要纠正（第61.4条），因为根据该条没有正当理由。对于林奈（Linnaeus）对其原字法的更正而言，第60条是完全可接受的，专门的称谓词是“ draconis ”（第23.1条）。然而，拼写d。“血竭”几乎是未知的分类社区，而的d。“德拉科'始终用于分类单元（例如，《 Acta Horti-Gotoburgensis》中的Byström23：179–214。1960； J。Arnold Arbor中的Symon。55：51–58。1974；LópezGonzález，Árbol。Arbust。Peníns。Ibér。 1：1418. 2001;佛罗里达市长Ruiz de la Torre，市长：281. 2006; AlmeidaPérez，lc; Wilkin等人在Kew Bull。67：697-705。2012; Krawczyszyn＆Krawczyszyn in Trees 28：757-768 2014年； Jura‐Morawiec和Tulik在Flora 213：2015年1月5日； Nadezhdina等在Funct。Pl。Biol。42：1092-1105。2015； Rivas‐Martínez等在Int。J. Geobot中。决议7：21.2017; Klimko等人，发表于Syst.Evol.304：1041-1055.2018;Rivas-Martínez等人，《 Canadatricae 8 Especial（3）：116.2020）。谷歌学者于2020年7月28日搜索前二项式正字法，仅返回了2个参考，而后者则返回了2440个。

因此，出于命名稳定性的考虑，我们建议采用Art的拼写方式保护芦笋（dragonis）。14.11。拒绝该提议将产生不良后果，因为当前使用的拼写“ Dracaena draco ”绝大多数需要替换为“ D. draconis ”。