Fibigia multicaulis (Boiss. & Hohen.) Boiss., Fl.

AL-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. & Barriera, Gabrielle, 2019, Typification of Edmond Boissier’s Cruciferae (Brassicaceae) names enumerated in Flora Orientalis, Boissiera 72, pp. 1-193 : 87

Fibigia multicaulis (Boiss. & Hohen.) Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 259. 1867.

 Farsetia multicaulis Boiss. & Hohen. in Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient. 8: 31. 1849.

 Irania multicaulis (Boiss. & Hohen.) Hadač & Chrtek in Acta Univ. Carol., Biol. 1971: 248. 1973.

Type: “Hab. in monte Elbrus propè pagum Passgala. Kotschy. No 203”.

Holotypus: IRAN: “In m. Elbrus pr. pagum Passgala”, 27. V .1843, Kotschy 203 ( G-BOIS [ G00332310 ]; iso-: [ P00747702 ]) .

Notes. – Thirteen collections ( G [ G00371697 , G00371764 , G00371773 ], G-BOIS [ G00332311 plant on lower left], K [ K000484535 , K000484536 ], P [ P00747539 , P00747703 , P00747704 , P00747705 , P00747706 ], W [ W0051430 ], WAG), have the collection number as “ 203, 528 ”, collection date “ 15 Jul 1843 ”, and locality data “Prope cataractas Ser Abi Schirr et prope pagum Asadbar in partibus occidentalibus m. Elbrus” and, therefore, are not considered as part of the type collection .

Furthermore, four other collections ( B [ B100241466 ], G-BOIS [ G00332311 plant on upper right], JE [ JE0005735 ], KW) have the number 203 or 528, but with date of collection as 15 Jul 1843, and locality data as “Prope pagum Asadbar in partis occidentalibus m. Elburs ”. They too cannot be considered as part of the type collection .

The holotype sheet was annotated in Boissier’s handwriting. If the above 17 collections are to be considered syntypes, it is only because they carry one of two collection numbers that matches that of the holotype, but all other information are quite different.