P. Pablo Ferrer‐Gallego
(3143) Pinus sylvestris L., Sp. Pl.: 1000. 1 May 1753 [Gymnosp.: Pin.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Germany, Bayern, Weismain-Arnstein, im Hang S Friedhof, 50°02′26″N, 11°12′38″E, 455 m, auf Jurafelskanzel in Magerrasenhang, 31 Aug 2017, Hand 8886 (B barcode B 10 0762362), typ. cons. prop. Pinus sylvestris L. (Sp. Pl.: 1000. 1753) (Pinaceae), commonly known as Scots pine, is one of the most widespread and economically important forest tree species in the Northern Hemisphere (Caudullo & al. in Data Brief 12: 662–666. 2017). The name has been applied consistently and unambiguously for more than 250 years across floras, forestry literature, ecological studies, conservation policies, and legislation (see Brichta & al. in Centr. Eur. Forest. J. 69: 3–20. 2023 [and the references cited therein]; Zhao & al. in New Phytol. 242: 2353–2368. 2024). Pinus sylvestris is among the best-known conifer species worldwide and has the widest natural distribution of any species in the genus Pinus. Its range extends approximately 14,000 km from western Europe to eastern Siberia, occurring from the Mediterranean mountains to the Arctic Circle (Critchfield & Little, Geogr. Distrib. Pines World: map 32. 1966; Gaussen & al. in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur., ed. 2, 1: 40–44. 1993; Farjon & Filer, Atlas World's Conifers: 143. 2013; Houston Durrant & al. in San-Miguel-Ayanz & al., Eur. Atlas Forest Tree Sp. (EUFORGEN): Pinus sylvestris: e016b94+. 2016; Farjon, Handb. World's Conifers: 764–765. 2017; POWO, 2026). Linnaeus (l.c. 1753) validly described Pinus sylvestris including in the protologue a nomen specificum legitimum “1. PINUS foliis geminis: primordialibus solitariis glabris” quoted from three of his own earlier works (Linnaeus, Hort. Cliff.: 450. 1738; Fl. Suec.: 287, No. 788. 1745; Mat. Med.: 153, No. 434. 1749), and also from Van Royen (Fl. Leyd. Prodr.: 89. 1740), Dalibard (Fl. Paris. Prodr.: 295. 1749), and Gmelin (Fl. Sibir.: 178. 1747). This diagnosis is followed by the synonym “Pinus sylvestris”, cited from Bauhin (Pinax: 491. 1623), Linnaeus (Fl. Lapp.: 273, No. 346. 1737), and Daléchamps (Hist. General. Pl.: 45. 1586), and three unnamed varieties indicated just with the symbols “β”, “γ”, and “δ” and respectively cited from Bauhin (l.c.: 492): “β Pinus maritima altera”, “γ Pinaster latifolius, julis virescentibus s. [sive] pallescentibus” and “δ Pinaster tenuifolius, julo purpurascente”; the geographical provenance is also reported as “Habitat in Europae borealis sylvis glareosis”. A reference quoted by Linnaeus (i.e., Daléchamps, l.c.) includes an illustration: “PINUS Sylvestris” that is part of the original material. The lectotype of the name Pinus sylvestris was designated by Farjon & Jarvis (in Regnum Veg. 128: 76. 1993) based on Daléchamps's illustration (l.c.). However, the illustration is not an original work by Daléchamps (l.c.), but a mirror copy of the figure “Pinaster II” published earlier by Clusius (Rar. Stirp. Hispan. Hist.: 40. 1576). This illustration (in Daléchamps, l.c.) depicts a branch that bifurcates medially into two smaller branchlets, each being relatively short. A single, comparatively large female cone is also present, notably disproportionate in size relative to the foliage. The cone is supported by a distinctly elongated peduncle that curves downward. The drawing is further enhanced by the magnifications shown in the lower-right corner, which depict a pair of leaves and two winged seeds, one of which has the seed separated from its wing (the pair of separate leaves were not depicted in Clusius's plate). A detailed analysis of this Renaissance illustration (see Clusius, l.c. and Daléchamps, l.c.) shows that it does not correspond to the modern or traditional concept of Pinus sylvestris. Instead, it can be identified with both historical (see, e.g., Antoine, Coniferen: 2–3. 1840; Lange in Willkomm & Lange, Prodr. Fl. Hispan. 1: 19. 1861) and current concepts of P. halepensis Mill. (Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Pinus No. 8. 1768), nom. cons. (see, e.g., Farjon, l.c.: 681–682; Ferrer-Gallego & Farjon in Taxon 68: 1368–1369. 2019; Earle in The Gymnosperm Database. 2026). In Daléchamps's illustration the relative proportions of the leaves and the female cone (with the cone appearing disproportionately large compared to the leaves), together with the presence of a female cone borne on a long peduncle, even in immature cones (i.e., closed ones), and the overall dimensions of these structures (see below), clearly identify this illustration as Pinus halepensis. A thorough consultation with several botanist colleagues from the species’ distribution area has confirmed that the plate can be confidently identified as representing this species, and not P. sylvestris, which has smaller leaves, much smaller cones, and, most notably, a much shorter peduncle or even sessile cones, especially in the immature state. Moreover, both species can also be distinguished by the scales of the female cone, particularly by the apophyses and the umbo. In P. sylvestris, the apophyses are elevated with a transverse keel, generally recurved or with a longitudinal keel, barbed or hooked, and the umbo is small and obtuse, sometimes bearing a tiny, brittle prickle. In contrast, in P. halepensis, the apophyses are nearly flat or slightly raised, and the umbo is flat or depressed, broadly rhombic in outline, and unarmed (see, e.g., Lambert, Descr. Pinus 1: t. 1, vs. t. 11. 1803; Staszkiewicz in Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 14: 259–315. 1968; Businský, Acta Prúhon. 88: fig. 30A, B vs. fig. 26C. 2008; Farjon, l.c.: 764–765 vs. 681–682). Daléchamps's drawing (l.c.) shows a rhombic apophysis, nearly flat or slightly raised, not hooked or recurved, and a flat, unarmed umbo, features that more closely resemble the morphology of P. halepensis in the immature state of the cone than that of P. sylvestris. This interpretation is fully supported by the original text accompanying Clusius's “Pinaster II” (l.c.: 39), which explicitly describes a small, often twisted tree of southern distribution, distinct from the tall, straight-trunked pine universally known as Pinus sylvestris. The attribution of Clusius's “Pinaster II” to P. halepensis has already been recognized by several authors since the nineteenth century, notably by Willkomm & Lange (l.c.), and is fully consistent with current taxonomic understanding. Supporting evidence for this nomenclatural proposal will be presented in a parallel paper (Ferrer-Gallego in Taxon 75: e70155. 2026). Consequently, the lectotype of Pinus sylvestris as currently typified is taxonomically referable to P. halepensis. If strictly applied, this would render P. halepensis a later heterotypic synonym of P. sylvestris and require the adoption of another name for the species universally known as Scots pine. Such an outcome would be profoundly destabilizing. Pinus halepensis has already been conserved with a conserved type (Ferrer-Gallego & Farjon, l.c; Applequist in Taxon 72: 192. 2023; Wilson in Taxon 72: 906. 2023), and its name is firmly established for the most widespread Mediterranean pine. Allowing P. halepensis to fall into synonymy under P. sylvestris would overturn this decision in practice and introduce major confusion into Mediterranean forestry, ecology, and conservation literature. At the same time, P. sylvestris is the cornerstone species of boreal and temperate Eurasian forests and is one of the most intensively studied tree species globally (Price & al. in Richardson, Ecol. Biogeogr. Pinus: 49–68. 1998; Hytteborn & al. in Andersson, Conif. Forests, Ecosyst. World 6: 23–99. 2005). Replacing its name would have far-reaching consequences across multiple disciplines and regions. Therefore, to preserve the long-established and universally accepted application of the name Pinus sylvestris, conservation of the name with a conserved type under Art. 14.9 of the ICN is proposed (see Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 162. 2025). I here propose a modern and well-preserved specimen (B barcode B 10 0762362), with available molecular data (see https://www.ggbn.org/ggbn_portal/search/record?ggbnId=35X97P), in the herbarium of the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin as the conserved type. This specimen was collected in Weismain-Arnstein (Bavaria, Germany) and bears two branches with leaves and female mature cones. The specimen shows all the diagnostic characters of Pinus sylvestris (e.g., including leaf morphology, cone size and attachment, apophysis structure, and reproductive organs), and clearly represents the current application and concept of the name (see, e.g., Gaussen & al., l.c.; Businský, l.c.; Farjon, l.c.; Eckenwalder, l.c.; Earle, l.c.). Designation of this specimen as the conserved type would unambiguously fix the application of the name Pinus sylvestris to the species universally known as Scots pine and would fully preserve current usage of both P. sylvestris and P. halepensis. Rejection of this proposal would result in severe nomenclatural instability, as it would require the displacement of one of the most familiar and economically important plant names in the world. Specifically, rejecting the present proposal would have the highly undesirable consequence that the name Pinus sylvestris would have to replace P. halepensis, and another name, a heterotypic synonym of P. sylvestris, if it exists and is available at the species level, would then be used for the species currently known as P. sylvestris. In contrast, acceptance of the proposal would preserve stability, historical continuity, and taxonomic clarity, fully in accordance with the primary objectives of the International Code of Nomenclature. I am grateful to Dr. John Wiersema and Dr. Melanie Schori for their helpful guidance, support, and constructive comments on this proposal. I also thank Dr. Denis A. Krivenko for his assistance in studying the specimens at IRK.