Erophila DC.

AL-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. & Barriera, Gabrielle, 2019, Typification of Edmond Boissier’s Cruciferae (Brassicaceae) names enumerated in Flora Orientalis, Boissiera 72, pp. 1-193 : 108

Erophila DC. , Syst. Nat. 2: 356. 1821.

Tribe: Arabideae DC.

Notes. – All regional floras and checklists that covered parts of the Flora Orientalis area (e.g., BUSCH, 1939; COODE & CULLEN, 1965; HEDGE, 1968; JAFRI, 1973; GREUTER et al., 1986; TAN & STEVANOVIĆ, 2002) recognized Erophila as a genus distinct from Draba , whereas only few recent authors (e.g., APPEL & AL-SHEHBAZ, 2003; AL-SHEHBAZ, 2012) united the former with the latter. It is interesting to note that LINNAEUS (1753) described the type species of Erophila as Draba verna L. Molecular phylogenetic studies by JORDON-THADEN et al. (2010) firmly established that Erophila is nested within Draba and supported the recognition of a single genus.

In spite of synonymizing Erophila with Draba , the number of taxa recognized in Erophila have not yet been fully accounted for in Draba . One of the main reasons is the lack of agreement among experts of the Brassicaceae as to how many species and infraspecific taxa should be recognized in Erophila . For example, IPNI (2019) lists over 100 binomials, wheras SCHULZ (1927) recognized only seven species but divided E. verna (L.) DC. into 36 varieties.

By contrast, AL-SHEHBAZ et al. (2010) favored the recognition of a single polymorphic species. The second main reason is that no taxonomic study on the Erophila complex will be satisfactory unless combined with extensive, population-based molecular, cytological, and critical morphological studies. As shown by WINGE (1940), chromosome numbers show a complex series form the lowest 2 n = 14 to the highest 2 n = 96, though future studies are needed to confirm that.