(2737) Cleome capensis L., Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 940. Jul–Aug 1763 [Angiosp.: Cappar . / Cleom .], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus.

Linnaeus (l.c.) listed the locality of Cleome capensis as “Habitat ad Cap. b. spei, & in India.” To date, nobody has identified that “Indian” element in the original protologue, and the name was not mentioned in any account of the Indian flora (Hooker & Thomson in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 1: 168–170. 1875; Raghavan in Sharma & Balakrishnan, Fl. India 2: 299–321. 1993). Willdenow's (Sp. Pl. 3: 571. 1800) was the only major work of the past two centuries in which the species was maintained in Cleome L., and its description was basically copied from Linnaeus (l.c.). However, earlier students of the South African flora confused the species limits and synonymized it under various taxa. For example, Thunberg (Prodr. Pl. Cap.: 108. 1800) listed it under the later‐published Cheiranthus strictus L. f. (= Heliophila scoparia Burch. ex DC.), Candolle (Syst. Nat. 2: 695. 1821; Prodr. 1: 235. 1824) placed it under the illegitimate H. cleomoides DC. (= H. callosa (L. f.) DC.), Sonder (in Abh. Naturwiss. Naturwiss. Verein Hamburg 1: 258. 1846; in Harvey & Sonder, Fl. Cap. 1: 52. 1860) assigned it under H. callosa , and Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl. 3[3]: 5. 1898) transferred it to Heliophila L. (H. capensis (L.) Kuntze), but his species delimitation was the same as Candolle's (l.c.) and Sonder's (l.c.).

As indicated by Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 425. 2007), the only original material known for Cleome capensis is Herb. Linn. No. 850.23 (LINN), and he recommended the rejection of the name. An examination of the specimen image supports Marais (in Codd & al., Fl. Southern Africa 13: 62, 74. 1970) and Codd & Kers (in Codd & al., l.c.: 139) in assigning it to Heliophila subulata Burch. ex DC., the holotype of which was also examined by this author. Marais's conclusion that C. capensis is a nomen confusum is justified because all previous botanists also confused the species limits due to their failure to identify the Indian element in the original publication.

The present author has been monographing Heliophila (ca. 100 spp.) for several years and believes that the confusing name Cleome capensis should be rejected to avoid the displacement of the well‐established H. subulata solely on nomenclatural grounds. Although the former name is not typified, its existing original material is indistinguishable from the holotype of the latter species. Heliophila subulata is quite widespread in the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, and KwaZulu‐Natal Provinces of South Africa, and it is recognized in all except three of the above‐mentioned references (those of Willdenow, Thunberg, and Jarvis), as well as in all of the regional floras and checklists of the above provinces, including Goldblatt & Manning (in Strelitzia 9 [Cape Pl.]: 382. 2000), Germishuizen & Meyer (in Strelitzia 4 [Pl. S. Africa]: 326. 2003), and Germishuizen & al. (Checkl. S. Afr. Pl.: 291. 2006) and molecular phylogenetic and genomic studies (Mummenhoff & al. in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 92: 400–424. 2005; Mandáková & al. in Taxon 61: 989–1000. 2012).

Adoption of the present proposal will secure the current use of H. subulata . However, if the proposal is rejected, the highly obscure name H. capensis will have to replace the former name, which has been continuously in use for nearly two centuries.

（2737）Cleome capensis L.，Sp。，编辑。2：940。1763年7月至8月[ Angiosp.：Cappar。/ Cleom。]，标称值。尤蒂克河 支柱。类型：非指定类型。

Linnaeus（lc）将Cleome capensis的所在地列为“栖息地” 。b。spei，以及在印度。” 迄今为止，没有人在原始原型中发现“印度”元素，并且在印度植物区系中也没有提及该名称（Hooker＆Thomson in Hooker，Fl.Brit.India 1：168-170。1875； Raghavan （印度，沙尔玛和巴拉克里希南（Sharma＆Balakrishnan），2：299-321。1993年）。Willdenow的（SP PL 3：571. 1800）是其中的物种保持在过去的两个世纪中唯一的主要工作白花菜L.，其描述基本上从Linnaeus（lc）复制而来。但是，南非植物区系的早期学生混淆了物种限制，并在各种分类中将其作为同义词。例如，Thunberg（Prodr。Pl。Cap .: 108. 1800）将其列为后来出版的Cheiranthus strictus L. f.。（= Heliophila scoparia Burch。ex DC。），Candolle（Syst。Nat。2：695. 1821; Prodr。1：235. 1824）将其置于非法的H. cleomoides DC下。（= H. callosa（L. f。）DC。），Sonder（在Abh。Naturwiss。Naturwiss。Verein Hamburg 1：258. 1846；在Harvey＆Sonder，Fl。Cap。1：52. 1860）将其分配给H. callosa和Kuntze（Revis。Gen. Pl。3 [3]：5. 1898）将其转移到HeliophilaL.（H. capensis（L.）Kuntze），但他的物种划界与Candolle（lc）和Sonder（lc）相同。

正如贾维斯（Jarvis）所指出的那样（混乱中的秩序：425。2007），唯一已知的克利姆角芹的原始材料是草。林恩 No. 850.23（LINN），他建议拒绝使用该名称。对标本图像的检查支持Marais（在Codd等人，Fl。Southern Africa 13：62，74 . 1970）和Codd＆Kers（在Codd等人，lc：139）中将其分配给Heliophila subulata Burch。ex DC。，其原型也已被作者检查过。Marais关于C. capensis是nomen confusum的结论是有道理的，因为所有先前的植物学家都由于无法识别原始出版物中的印度元素而混淆了物种限制。

本作者多年来一直在撰写Heliophila（约100 spp。）专着，并认为应该避免混淆名称Cleome capensis，以避免仅凭命名学理由就足以取代成熟的H. subulata。尽管没有对前一个名称进行典型化，但其现有原始材料与后一个物种的原型没有区别。幽门螺杆菌在南非的西开普省，东开普省和夸祖鲁-纳塔尔省相当普遍，除上述三个参考文献（Willdenow，Thunberg和Jarvis的参考文献）外，在所有参考文献中均得到认可以上省份的区域植物区系和清单，包括Goldblatt和Manning（在鹤望兰9 [Cape Pl。]：382。2000），Germishuizen＆Meyer（在鹤望兰4 [Pl。S. Africa]：326。2003），和Germishuizen等。（Checkl。S. Afr。Pl.：291。2006）以及分子系统发育和基因组研究（Mummenhoff等人，Ann。Missouri Bot。Gard。92：400-424。2005；Mandáková等人，Taxon 61：989） –1000年，2012年）。

通过本提案将确保目前使用H.subulata。但是，如果该提议被拒绝，则高度隐晦的名称H. capensis将不得不替换以前的名称，该名称已经连续使用了近两个世纪。