Family |
Fabaceae
Lupinus pilosus
L.
Lupinus pilosus L.
First published in J.A.Murray (ed.), Syst. Veg., ed. 13.: 545 (1774).
(Systema Vegetabilium, edition 13, p. 545; 1774.)
• Life-form & habit: Annual herb according to Kew. The original 1774 account describes a hairy plant, comparable in stature to L. hirsutus, without giving a numerical height.
• Original description — leaves: Described as lanceolate and somewhat blunt in the original wording, Folia lanceolata obtusiuscula. No measurements or leaflet count are provided.
• Original description — flowers: Flowers arranged in whorls; calyces appendaged, with the upper lip divided into two and the lower lip entire. Corollas described as flesh-pink to whitish, with a red centre to the standard petal. This colour statement is retained specifically as the wording of the original account.
• Fruit & seeds: Not separately described in the species entry on page 545.
• Flowering, habitat & elevation: No flowering period, habitat or numerical elevation is supplied in the original species entry. Mouterde’s combined treatment is not used to infer species-specific values here.
• Recorded locations: Bqaatouta, Kfertay.
• Native range: Albania, East Aegean Islands, Greece, Crete, Lebanon-Syria, Palestine, Türkiye and Türkiye-in-Europe.
• Introduced into: Bangladesh, Canary Islands, Cape Provinces, Central European Russia, India, Nepal, New South Wales, Pakistan, Tanzania and Uganda.
• Synonyms: Kew lists Lupinus varius subsp. orientalis Franco & P.Silva as a homotypic synonym, and Lupinus hirsutus L. (a rejected name), L. pilosus f. albus Voss and L. pilosus f. coeruleus Voss as heterotypic synonyms.
• Description source: Linnaeus, in J. A. Murray (ed.), Systema Vegetabilium, edition 13, printed page 545 (1774). Original Latin account checked directly against the scanned page; the text above is an English rendering with explicit omissions.
⚠️ Taxonomic note: Mouterde (Nouvelle Flore du Liban et de la Syrie, vol. 2, pp. 224–225) combines L. digitatus and L. pilosus. They are accepted as separate taxa by Kew, so his combined morphology and locality list have not been transferred to this species. The description above follows the original 1774 entry, including its historical flower-colour wording, and should not be read as a complete modern diagnostic treatment.