(2755) Silene linearis Decne. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 3: 276. Mai 1835 [Angiosp.: Caryophyll.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: [Egypt], désert du Sinaï, Jun 1832, Bové 178 (G barcode G00226732!; isotypi: G barcode G00226733!, K barcode K000728452!).

(H) Silene linearis Sweet, Hort. Brit., ed. 2: 51. Oct–Dec 1830, nom. rej. prop.

Typus: non designatus.

The name Silene linearis Decne. (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 3: 276. 1835) applies to a species distributed in the Middle East from Egypt to the Arabian Peninsula. It has previously been placed in Silene sect. Rigidulae (Boiss.) Schischk., but this section has been shown to be polyphyletic (Jafari & al. in Taxon 69: 337–368. 2020), so it is to be reclassified in “Silene section Arenosae Eggens & al., sect. nov.” (Eggens & al. in Phytokeys, in press). This section will consist of nine species that are distributed in SW Asia and recognized by narrowly lanceolate calyx teeth that are heteromorphic with three longer narrow and two shorter ovate calyx teeth, and lanceolate to oblanceolate (non‐spathulate) basal leaves. Silene linearis Decne. is one of the more easily recognized members of the group, distinguished by the calyx segments with a distinct mucro and the calyx teeth with a relatively broad transparent margin. The species has been recognized for a long time and rather consistently as S. linearis Decne. by many botanists, e.g., Boissier (Fl. Orient. 1: 602. 1867), Rohrbach (Monogr. Silene: 162. 1869), Williams (in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 32: 122. 1896), Post & Dinsmore (Fl. Syria, ed. 2, 1: 180. 1932), Chowdhuri (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 22: 221–278. 1957), Rechinger (Fl. Lowland Iraq: 239. 1964), Mouterde (Nouv. Fl. Liban Syrie 1: 497. 1966), Zohary (Fl. Palaest. 1: 88. 1966), Miller & Cope (Fl. Arabian Peninsula Socotra 1: 221. 1996) and Boulos (Fl. Egypt 1: 64. 1999). The name is being lectotypified in this sense by Eggens & al. (l.c.).

Unfortunately, Sweet (Hort. Brit., ed. 2: 51. 1830) used the same name five years earlier in the second edition of his Hortus Britannicus. There Silene linearis is mentioned in a list, and the only descriptive information is a note on flower color and that it has linear leaves. Naples is stated as the geographical origin. There is, however, a reference to “Cucubalus angustifolius T.N. [= ‘Tenore. Flora Neapolitana’]” and its accompanying plate (t. 37) in Tenore's (1811–1815) Flora Napolitana (1: 233), so the name is validly published as a replacement name for C. angustifolius Ten., non. Mill. (1768). The combination Silene angustifolia had already been used by several authors, with S. angustifolia Poir. (Voy. Barbarie 2: 164. 1789) being the oldest, thereby making that combination unavailable for use by Sweet for Tenore's taxon. While many “names” listed in Hortus Britannicus are not validly published (see ICN Art. 38 Ex. 3; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), for S. linearis Sweet a replaced synonym was cited, making the name validly published (Art. 41).

Silene linearis Sweet (l.c.) is mentioned by few authors and has never been typified. Rohrbach (l.c.) referred to the name as a synonym of S. cucubalus Wibel (= S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke). Marsden‐Jones & Turrill (Bladder Campions: 133. 1957) associated the name S. linearis Sweet with a part of the Silene vulgaris assemblage. This part or group consists of plants with xeromorphic habit and narrow leaves found in Italy and former Yugoslavia. They referred to the group as “Silene vulgaris subsp. linearis (Sweet)” but they did not validly publish the name, but instead used that designation in an informal way. This approach seems to be a deliberate choice because they suggested that for names below species level, only names that are needed for scientific or economic reasons should be formally validated. Their use of the epithet “linearis” therefore seems to be informal, and they call the entity to which they assign the designation a “principal grouping” rather than a taxon.

Chater & al. (in Tutin & al., Fl. Europ., ed. 2, 1: 204–205. 1993) noted that the taxonomy of the Silene vulgaris group is complicated and referred to Marsden‐Jones & Turrill (l.c.) as a treatment that they followed. They recognized five subspecies of S. vulgaris, but did not mention S. linearis Sweet, and also referred to Aeschimann's (in Candollea 40: 57–98. 1985) study of S. vulgaris, where S. linearis Sweet is not mentioned either. Pignatti (Fl. Ital. 1: 246. 1982) recognized eight subspecies of S. vulgaris, but S. linearis Sweet is neither mentioned in the synonym list, nor in the discussion. The same is true for Greuter & al. (Med‐Checklist 1. 1984).

It seems that the only recent authors that have in any way recognized Silene linearis Sweet are Marsden‐Jones & Turrill (l.c.), and they did so in an informal way. Silene linearis Decne., on the other hand, is a well‐established name used for a distinct species in a large number of publications. We therefore propose here to conserve the name S. linearis Decne. against its earlier homonym S. linearis Sweet under Art. 14 of the ICN.

（2755）Silene linearis Decne。在安 科学 Nat。，Bot。，ser。2，3：276麦1835 [Angiosp .: Caryophyll。]，NOM。缺点 支柱。

Typus：[埃及]，沙漠西奈杜君1832年，博韦178（G条码G00226732 !; isotypi：摹条码G00226733！ķ条码K000728452！）。

（H）线性硅谷甜，霍尔特。英国版，2：51。1830年10月至12月，名义值。rej。支柱。

类型：非指定类型。

名称Silene linearis Decne。（在植物学年刊，第2卷，第3期，第276页。1835年）适用于从埃及分布到中东到阿拉伯半岛的中东物种。它以前被放置在Silene教派中。Rigidulae（Boiss。）Schischk。，但此部分显示为多系的（Jafari等人，在Taxon 69：337–368。2020），因此应在“ Silene section Arenosae ”中重新分类。Eggens等人。十一月。” （Eggens等人在Phytokeys中，印刷中）。本节将由分布在亚洲西南部的9个种组成，它们被狭长形的披针形花萼齿识别，它们是异形的，具有三个较长的狭窄和两个较短的卵形的花萼齿，以及披针形的到倒披针形的（非无刺的）基生叶。Silene linearis Decne。是萼片组中较容易识别的成员之一，其特征是花萼段具有明显的粘膜和花萼齿具有相对宽的透明边缘。该物种已经被公认很长一段时间，并且一直被认为是线性链球菌。Decne。由许多植物学家撰写，例如Boissier（Fl。Orient。1：602。1867），Rohrbach（Monogr。Silene：162. 1869），Williams（in J. Linn。Soc。，Bot。32：122. 1896），Post ＆Dinsmore（Fl.Syria，ed.2，1：180。1932），Chowdhuri（in Notes Roy。Bot。Gard。Edinburgh 22：221–278。1957），Rechinger（Fl。伊拉克低地：239. 1964），穆特（Mouvde）（新南威尔士州立班·西里1：497. 1966），扎哈里（佛罗里达州Palaest。1：88. 1966），米勒和科普（佛罗里达州阿拉伯半岛索科特拉岛1：221. 1996）和布洛斯（佛罗里达州1） ：64. 1999）。Eggens等人在这种意义上正对这一名称进行电化。（lc）。

不幸的是，Sweet（Hort。Brit。，ed。2:51。1830）在五年前的Hortus Britannicus第二版中使用了相同的名字。有米瓦线形是在列表中提及，唯一的描述性信息是花色的说明，它具有线性的树叶。那不勒斯被声明为地理起源。但是，有一个参考文献“ Cucubalus angustifolius TN [='Tenore。Tenore（1811–1815）Flora Napolitana（1：233）中的Flora Neapolitana ']”及其随附的印版（t。37 ），因此该名称有效地发布为C. angustifolius Ten。，non的替代名称。磨。（1768）。组合Sillene angustifolia已经被S. angustifolia Poir和几位作者使用过。（Voy。Barbarie 2：164. 1789）是最古老的，因此使Sweet无法将其用于Tenore的分类单元。尽管Hortus Britannicus中列出的许多“名称”均未有效发布（请参阅ICN Art。38 Ex。3； Turland等人，Regnum Veg。159. 2018），但对于S. linearis Sweet，却使用了一个替代的同义词，使之成为该名称。有效发布（第41条）。

Silene linearis Sweet（lc）很少有人提及，从未有过代表。Rohrbach（lc）将该名称称为S. cucubalus Wibel（= S. vulgaris（Moench）Garcke）的同义词。Marsden-Jones＆Turrill（Bladder Campions：133. 1957）将S. linearis Sweet命名为Silene vulgaris组合的一部分。这部分或组包括在意大利和前南斯拉夫发现的具有干叶性习性和窄叶的植物。他们称该小组为“寻常的亚种”。线性（甜）”，但是他们没有有效地发布名称，而是以非正式的方式使用了该名称。这种方法似乎是一个有意的选择，因为他们建议，对于低于物种级别的名称，应仅对出于科学或经济原因需要的名称进行正式验证。因此，他们对称呼词“ linearis ”的使用似乎是非正式的，他们将为其指定名称的实体称为“主要分组”，而不是分类单元。

Chater等。（在Tutin等人，Fl.Europ。，第2版，第1期：204-205。1993年）中，注意到Silene vulgaris组的分类很复杂，因此将Marsden-Jones＆Turrill（lc）称为一种处理方法。他们遵循。他们认识到寻常葡萄球菌的五个亚种，但没有提及线性葡萄球菌，也提到了Aeschimann（在Candollea 40：57-98。1985）对寻常葡萄球菌的研究，其中也没有提到线性葡萄球菌。皮尼亚蒂（Fl。Ital。1：246. 1982）认识到寻常葡萄球菌有8个亚种，但是线性葡萄球菌没有在同义词列表中提到，也没有在讨论中提及。Greuter等人也是如此。（医疗清单1. 1984）。

似乎只有马斯登·琼斯和特里尔（Marsden-Jones＆Turrill（lc））才以任何方式认可了Silene linearis Sweet，这是他们的非正式写照。另一方面，Silene linearis Decne。是一个公认的名称，用于许多出版物中的不同物种。因此，我们在这里建议保留名称S. linearis Decne。与其之前的同名S. linearis Sweet在Art。ICN的14 。