Cistus × stenophyllus Link

TSO logo

Sponsor this page

For information about how you could sponsor this page, see How You Can Help

Credits

New article for Trees and Shrubs Online.

Recommended citation
'Cistus × stenophyllus' from the website Trees and Shrubs Online (treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/cistus/cistus-x-stenophyllus/). Accessed 2025-05-21.

Family

  • Cistaceae

Genus

  • Cistus
  • Cistus ladanifer × C. monspeliensis

Synonyms

  • Cistus lusitanicus var. decumbens Maund
  • Cistus × loretii Rouy & Foucaud

Glossary

apex
(pl. apices) Tip. apical At the apex.
lanceolate
Lance-shaped; broadest in middle tapering to point.
oblanceolate
Inversely lanceolate; broadest towards apex.
keel petal
(in the flowers of some legumes) The two front petals fused together to form a keel-like structure.

References

There are no active references in this article.

Credits

New article for Trees and Shrubs Online.

Recommended citation
'Cistus × stenophyllus' from the website Trees and Shrubs Online (treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/cistus/cistus-x-stenophyllus/). Accessed 2025-05-21.

Editorial Note

Treated by Bean as Cistus lusitanicus ‘Decumbens’, this plant, with conspicuous crimson blotches at the base of the petals, was illustrated by Maund in the Botanic Garden vol. 9, No. 799, fig. 3 (1841) and described as Cistus lusitanicus var. decumbens [Bean’s original reference was erroneous]. Maund’s variety has been referred to Cistus × stenophyllus, which is the hybrid C. ladanifer × C. monspeliensis, not C. ladanifer × C. inflatus (syn. C. hirsutus) as assumed by Bean. That cross, by contrast, has since been given the name Cistus × dansereaui P.Silva, and there are currently plants circulating in the trade under the name C. × dansereaui ’Decumbens’ (the white petals and crimson blotches inherited from C. ladanifer are ubiquitous; it is the identity of the other parent that is at issue). No doubt this puzzle will be resolved only when a full, revised treatment of the genus is possible.

Cistus × loretii, of which Bean describes ‘a spotted form in commerce with flowers about the size of those of C. monspeliensis and with linear-lanceolate leaves, intermediate between those of the parents,’ is now recognised as synonymous with C. × stenophyllus (POWO 2025).

Because the modern taxonomic situation diverges from Bean’s understanding, we reproduce below Bean’s entry for Cistus lusitanicus ‘Decumbens’ without intervention, and supply Maund’s 1841 illustration for comparison.

A spreading bush usually seen below 3 ft in height but taller in semi-shade; young stems gummy, sparsely hairy at first. Leaves stalkless, clammy, narrowly oblong-lanceolate to oblong-oblanceolate, bluntly pointed to rounded at the apex, 1 to 212 in. long, 14 to 34 in. wide; three-nerved and clasping the stem at the base; upper surface dark green with a dull sheen, lower surface paler, with a few scattered hairs. Flowers white with a crimson blotch at the base of each petal, about 212 in. across, borne in terminal clusters each of three to five flowers; sepals five, downy on the outside, clad within with silky hairs, especially near the edges.The origin of this cistus is unknown but there can be little doubt that it is the plant figured and described in Maund’s The Botanic Garden, Vol. 9, No. 733, fig. 3 (c. 1845) as C. lusitanicus var. decumbens. It is recorded that at Kew, it survived the great frosts of 1886. It was later confused with C. × loretii and this is the name under which it appeared in the first edition of this work and under which it was figured in the Botanical Magazine, t. 8490 (1913). It is only in the past thirty years or so that it has come to be known again by its correct name. C. × lusitanicus ‘Decumbens’ is one of the élite of cistuses, valuable for its low, spreading habit and for bearing its flowers freely over a long period. It is not reliably hardy, but should survive the average winter. It should be pointed out that under the rules of botanical nomenclature the name C. × lusitanicus Maund is invalid, the same epithet having been used earlier by Philip Miller for some unidentified cistus. It is best retained, however, until a valid name is published.