Erysimum hookeri Boiss.

AL-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. & Barriera, Gabrielle, 2019, Typification of Edmond Boissier’s Cruciferae (Brassicaceae) names enumerated in Flora Orientalis, Boissiera 72, pp. 1-193 : 41-42

Erysimum hookeri Boiss. , Fl. Orient. 1: 203. 1867

[nom. illeg.].

 Cheiranthus griffithii Hook. f. & Thomson in J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 5: 137. 1861.

 Erysimum griffithii (Hook. f. & Thomson) Boiss. ex Hook. f. & T. Anderson in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 1: 153. 1872.

Note. – Erysimum hookeri is illegitimate because it is superfluous for Cheiranthus griffithii .

Erysimum caespitosum var. brachycarpum Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 203. 1867.

Type: “Hab. in jugo Elbrusensi inter Asterabad et Schahrud (Bunge!)”.

Holotypus: IRAN: “In jugo Elbrusensi; inter Astrabad et Schahrud”, V.1858, Bunge 108 ( G-BOIS [ G00332145 ]; iso-: P [ P00868475 , P05413799 ]) .

= Erysimum caespitosum DC., Syst. Nat. 2: 496. 1821.

Note. – The P05413799 duplicate has the exact printed labels of the other two duplicates above but lacks the collection number.

Erysimum persepolitanum Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient. 6: 11. 1846.

Type: “Hab. in collibus prope Persepolin et Schiraz. Kotschy No. 261, in Persiâ Aucher No. 165”.

Lectotypus (first step designated by POLATSCHEK & RECHINGER, 1968: 291; second step designated here): IRAN: “In collibus pr. ruinas u. Persepolis”, 19.IV.1842, Kotschy 261 ( G-BOIS [ G00154052 ]; isolecto-: B [ B100068696 ], BM [ BM000522230 , BM000946241 ], BP, C [ C10008836 , C10008837 ], E [ E00373151 , E00373152 ], FR [ FR0038225 ], G [ G00002423 , G00002424 , G00002425 ], GJO, GOET [ GOET002591 ], H [ H1107639 ], HAL [ HAL0084090 ], JE [ JE00001846 ], K [ K000693789 ], KW [ KW000127966 ], LE [ LE00013007 ], M, MO [ MO3831822 ], P [ P02272751 , P02272752 , P022727531 , P02272754 ], PR, S, W [ W0026707 , W0026708 , W18890154970 , W18890072844 ], WU [ WU0067616 ]) . Syntypus: IRAN: “Persia”, s.d., Aucher-Eloy 165 ( G-BOIS [ G00154053 ]) .

= Erysimum laxiflorum J. Gay, Erysim. Nov.: 4. 1842.

Notes. – There are four sheets of the type collection Kotschy 261 at W, and none of which was annotated by the publication of POLATSCHEK & RECHINGER (1968) or later on, and none was examined by Boissier. Therefore, second-step is needed to correct the lectotypification from W to G-BOIS.

BOISSIER (1867a: 204) corrected the collection number from Kotschy 231 to Kotschy 261, and that correction was indicated by BOISSIER (1888). Kotschy 231, which was collected on 3 June 1843 in Tochal near Tehran, was cited by BOISSIER (1867a: 342) under Aethionema trinervium .

Erysimum aciphyllum Boiss. in Ann. Sci. Nat ., Bot. ser. 2, 17: 80. March 1842 [nom. illeg.].

 Erysimum leptocarpum J. Gay, Erysim. Nov.: 4. January 1842.

Type: “Habitat in Armeniâ (Auch. exsicc. nº 161! in herb. mus. Par.: specimen fructiferum, et igitur petalis prorsùs destitutum)”.

Holotypus: TURKEY: sine loco, 1834, Aucher-Eloy 161 ( P [ P02272733 ]; iso-: G [ G00154046 ], K [ K000075622 ]) .

Notes. – Boissier’s name is illegitimate because it was based on the same type collection of E. leptocarpum J. Gay.

POLATSCHEK (2011: 408) lectotypified the species based on the P 02272733 material that he annotated and indicated that isolectotypes were at G and K, both of them currently on JSTOR. These three sheets have fruiting material, and the K sheet also has a detailed handwritten description by J. Gay.

Boissier did not examine or annotate any of these three sheets. Instead, he annotated P05354918 as Erysimum aciphyllum , a flowering material that was subsequently annotated by Gay in 20 March 1842 as Erysimum leptocarpum , or more than two months after the publication of his species. All four sheets are Aucher-Eloy 161. Furthermore, both species names do not need lectotypification because both Gay and Boissier based their species descriptions on the unicates P02272733 and P05354918, respectively.

YILDRIMILI (2008: 13) lectotypified the species based on G-BOIS [G00154027], but that typification was erroneous for two reasons. First, BOISSIER (1842a) cited only Aucher-Eloy 161, not Boissier s.n., in his description of the species. Second, Yildrimili’s typification was predated by 25 years and correctly by POLATSCHEK (1983: 93) but for E. aciphyllum var. stylosum (see below).

YILDRIMILI (2008) recognized E. aciphyllum as a distinct species. However, a comparison of the types of this and E. leptocarpum shows no significant differences and, therefore, POLATSCHEK (2011) ’s reduction of the former name to synonymy of the latter is accepted.