(2775) Lepidium pumilum Boiss. & Balansa in Boissier, Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 2, 6: 21. Jul–Dec 1859 [Angiosp.: Cruc.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: [Turkey, Kayseri], “Terrains salés. − Bords des marais situés à l'ouest de Césarée (Cappadoce)”, 1107 m alt., 23 Jul 1856, Balansa 448 (G‐BOIS barcode G00150395; isotypi [exs. No. 999]: BM barcode BM001172145, BP, FI‐W No. 011176 [FI barcode FI005690], G barcodes G00446260 & G00446261, GOET, JE barcode JE00005905, K barcodes K000642709 & K000642710, P barcodes P05444741, P05444743 & P05444744, W Nos. 1889‐0019374 & 1889‐0069354, Z barcode Z‐000158309, ZT barcodes ZT‐00078598 & ZT‐00078599).

(=) Lepidium descemetii Rayneval in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 2: 738. Feb (sero)–Mar 1856, nom. rej. prop.

Holotypus: [Ukraine, Kherson prov.], “in salsuginosis insulae Djarilgatsch [Dzharylgach Island] maris Nigri”, 22 Mai 1845, Descemet (K barcodes K000653993 & K000653994 [together on 1 sheet]).

The name Lepidium pumilum Boiss. & Balansa (in Boissier, Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 2, 6: 21. 1859) has been widely applied since the time of its valid publication for the halophytic species of the L. cartilagineum (J. Mayer) Thell. complex distributed in Turkey (Inner Anatolia), Crimea and adjacent continental Ukraine, and Russia. Thellung (in Neue Denkschr. Schweiz. Naturf. Ges. 41, Abh. 1: 153, 155. 1906), in his extremely – and in this case unjustifiably – wide species concept treated L. pumilum as a variety of L. cartilagineum subsp. crassifolium (Pall.) Thell., but this approach was only shared by Busch, who validated the combination L. crassifolium var. pumilum (Boiss. & Balansa) N. Busch (in Kuznetsov & al., Fl. Cauc. Crit. 3(4): 111. 1907) and Latowski (Takson. Stud. Euraz. Lepidium [in Ser. Biol., Poznan. 23]: 1–105. 1982), but did not get further recognition. Probably under the influence of Thellung's lowering the rank of L. pumilum, the latter was once unacceptably synonymized with L. cartilagineum subsp. cartilagineum by de Carvalho e Vasconcellos (in Tutin & al., Fl. Europ. 1: 332. 1964), and this was followed by others (e.g., Hedge in Davis, Fl. Turkey 1: 283. 1965; Jalas & al. in Atlas Fl. Europ. 11: 214. 1996; Marhold in Euro+Med PlantBase. 2011, http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/; and Mutlu in Güner, Checkl. Fl. Turkey: 285. 2012). Unfortunately, this viewpoint is nowadays the most represented in the global databases (Warwick & al. in Pl. Syst. Evol. 259: 249–258. 2006; Global Biodiversity Information Facility, https://gbif.org; Plants of the World Online, http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org; Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, https://www.catalogueoflife.org; The Plant List, http://www.theplantlist.org; The World Checklist of Vascular Plants, https://wcvp.science.kew.org; Tropicos.org, http://www.tropicos.org; World Flora Online, http://www.worldfloraonline.org; all accessed Apr 2020). However, that viewpoint was improved four years later by Hedge's (in Rechinger, Fl. Iranica 57: 67. 1968) combination L. cartilagineum subsp. pumilum (Boiss. & Balansa) Hedge adopted by Zohary & al. (Consp. Fl. Orient. 1: 46. 1980), Greuter & al. (Med‐Checklist 3: 132. 1986), de Carvalho e Vasconcellos & al. (in Tutin & al., Fl. Europ., ed. 2, 1: 401. 1993), and Fakhr Ranjberi (in Assadi & al., Fl. Iran 143: 117. 2017). The most widely used approach, however, is treating L. pumilum as a separate species, as done, except for Busch (1.c. 1907), by all Russian/Soviet botanists (e.g., Busch & al., Sched. Fl. Cauc. 11–14: 9–10 [in Trudy Imp. S.‐Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 28: 435–436]. 1909; Busch in Komarov, Fl. SSSR 8: 514. 1939; Stankov in Wulf, Fl. Kryma 2, 1: 240. 1947; Kotov in Klokov & Visyulina, Fl. URSR 5: 404. 1953, in Fedorov, Fl. Evr. Chasti SSSR 4: 60. 1979; Czerepanov, Pl. Vasc. URSS: 137. 1981; Kotov in Prokudin, Opred. Vyssh. Rast. Ukrainy: 114. 1987) and post‐Soviet authors (Czerepanov, Vasc. Pl. Russia & Adjac. States (Former USSR): 143. 1995; Dorofeyev, Crucif. European Russia [in Turczaninowia 5, 3]: 87. 2002; Ilyinska & al., Ekofl. Ukrainy 5: 80. 2007; Dorofeyev in Bot. Zhurn. 93: 1961–1972. 2008, in Tzvelev, Consp. Fl. Europae Or. 1: 425. 2012; Ilyinska in Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 35: 25–29. 2014). This last circumscription is becoming more widespread elsewhere (e.g., Bona in J. Fac. Pharm. Istanbul Univ. 44: 31–62. 2014; Koch & al. in Trends Pl. Sci. 23: 4–6. 2018, https://brassibase.cos.uni-heidelberg.de; Al‐Shehbaz & Barriera in Boissiera 72: 151. 2019). In summary, except for those works that treat L. cartilagineum in an enormously wide sense, the taxon is known in floristic and systematic sources under the epithet “pumilum” either at subspecies or, most often, at species rank.

The application of the name L. descemetii Rayneval (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 2: 738. 1856) is just the opposite. As an object of a critical taxonomic work, it was used, to our knowledge, only four times: by Janka (in Természetrajzi Füz. 7: 122. 1883) in a key for siliculose European Cruciferae; by Jackson (in Index Kew. 2: 56. 1894), who was apparently the first to list it as a synonym of L. crassifolium Waldst. & Kit.; and by Nyman (Consp. Fl. Eur. 1: 64. 1878) and Thellung (l.c.: 153, 156), who classified it as L. crassifolium subsp. descemetii (Rayneval) Nyman and L. cartilagineum subsp. crassifolium var. descemetii (Rayneval) Thell., respectively. Otherwise, L. descemetii was either uncritically indexed (Nyman, Suppl. Syll. Fl. Eur.: 38. 1865; Gandoger in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 45: 228. 1898; Busch, l.c. 1907: 111; Latowski, l.c.: 55) or mentioned in a note as an obscure taxon (Schmalhausen, Fl. Sredn. Yuzhn. Rossii 1: 98. 1895). Except for these few old publications, the name is absent in relevant literature (e.g., in all other works cited here). As a consequence, in the above databases, when indexed, L. descemetii is given as an unplaced, unresolved, doubtful, or ambiguous name.

Nevertheless, there is adequate type material for Lepidium descemetii at K (barcodes K000653993 & K000653994). The taxon was described in a communication, dated 27 November 1855, to the Société botanique de France from Alphonse de Rayneval that was presented at the meeting of 14 December by Jacques Gay. As apparent from the correspondence and notes attached to the K specimen, Rayneval had previously sent the material comprising this specimen to Gay on two occasions, the first part received on 17 November and the second on 8 December of 1855, and Gay likely used it to refine the description and text of his published presentation. There is no reason to doubt that the two parts were derived from a single gathering made on 22 May 1845 on Dzharylgach Island by Charles Descemet, and although apparently mounted separately in Gay's herbarium, when received at K via Hooker in February of 1868, they were mounted together on a single sheet, which is here taken as the holotype of L. descemetii.

An independent study of this holotype by both of us led to the same conclusion that it is conspecific with L. pumilum. Noteworthy, the species is quite polymorphic, especially in terms of leaf width and shape, ranging from lanceolate to linear‐filiform, and the prior morphotype corresponds to L. pumilum, while the latter to L. descemetii. Such polymorphism led to taxonomic confusion involving a related but more distant L. caespitosum Desv. (for details, see German in Phytotaxa 452: 33–45. 2020). However, in view of the distribution of both morphotypes over nearly all the species range and availability of a grade of intermediates, there seems to be no way to treat these most likely ecological forms of the same entity as different species. Under this approach, a totally neglected but three‐year‐older name, L. descemetii, would have to replace the well‐known and well‐established L. pumilum. A similar change would be necessary if the taxon is treated as a subspecies of L. cartilagineum, in accordance with the 90‐year priority established by Nyman (l.c.) over Hedge's (l.c. 1968) combination at that rank, and creation of an additional combination would be needed. It is obvious that application of Art. 11 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) would not serve nomenclatural stability. Therefore, a limitation of priority of the obscure L. descemetii appears appropriate. In view of the above‐mentioned variability and with the need for a thorough revision of the whole L. cartilagineum complex (Al‐Shehbaz & Barriera, l.c.), it is safer to do this via conservation under Art. 14.1 and not rejection under 56.1 in order to keep L. descemetii available for the highly unlikely possibility that the broadly and narrowly leaved morphotypes of L. pumilum are taxonomically recognized.

（2775）披风铝Boiss。＆Diagn的Boissier的＆Balansa。Pl。东方 2，6：21. 1859年7月至12月[Angiosp .: Cruc。]，标称值。缺点 支柱。

Typus：[土耳其，开塞利]，“ Terrainssalés。−Césarée（Cappadoce）的海洋之城，1107米，1856年7月23日，Balansa 448（G‐BOIS条码G00150395；同型异型[exs.no. 999]：BM条码BM001172145，BP，FI ‐W编号011176 [FI条形码FI005690]，G条形码G00446260和G00446261，GOET，JE条形码JE00005905，K条形码K000642709和K000642710，P条形码P05444741，P05444743和P05444744，W编号1889-0019374和1889-0069354 Z‐000158309，ZT条码ZT‐00078598和ZT‐00078599）。

（=）Lepidium descemetii Rayneval in Bull。Soc。t 法国2：738。2月（血清）– 1856年3月，标称。rej。支柱。

Holotypus：[乌克兰，赫尔松省]，“在salsuginosis脑岛Djarilgatsch [贾雷尔加奇岛岛]马里斯Nigri”，22麦1845，后弹力（K条形码K000653993＆K000653994 [一起在1张]）。

名称为Lepidium pumilum Boiss。＆Balansa（在Boissier，Diagn。Pl。Orient。，ser。2，6：21. 1859）自有效发表之时起就已广泛应用于软骨乳杆菌（J. Mayer）Thell。的盐生植物种类。复杂分布在土耳其（安纳托利亚内陆），克里米亚和邻近的乌克兰大陆以及俄罗斯。Thellung（在Neue Denkschr。Schweiz。Naturf。Ges。41，Abh。153，155. 1906年提出）中，他的极端物种（在这种情况下是毫无道理的）宽物种概念将pumilum视为各种L. carilagineum subsp 。crassifolium（Pall。）Thell。，但这种方法仅由Busch共享，后者验证了L. crassifolium var。铝（羌活＆Balansa）N.布施（在库兹涅佐夫＆人，FL CAUC暴3（4）：。111. 1907）和Latowski（第一德胜梭哈Euraz。独行菜[在丝氨酸生物学，波兹南。 23]：1–105。1982），但没有得到进一步的认可。大概Thellung的降低军衔的影响下L.细叶，后者曾一度无法接受与异名L. cartilagineum亚种。软骨素由de Carvalho e Vasconcellos（在Tutin等人，Fl。Europ。1：332. 1964）中，其次是其他人（例如，Hedge in Davis，Fl。Turkey 1：283. 1965; Jalas等人在欧洲地图集：Atlas Fl。11：214。1996； Euro + Med PlantBase中的Marhold。2011，http：//ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/；以及土耳其Checkl.Fl。Güner的Mutlu：285。2012）。不幸的是，这种观点是当今全球数据库中最具代表性的（Warwick等人，发表于Pl。Syst。Evol。259：249-258。2006；全球生物多样性信息基金，https：//gbif.org；世界植物在线，http：//www.plantsoftheworldonline.org；《 Species 2000＆ITIS生命目录》，https：//www.catalogueoflife.org；植物名录，http：//www.theplantlist.org；《世界维管植物清单》 ，https：//wcvp.science.kew.org； Tropicos.org，http：//www.tropicos.org；世界花卉在线，http：//www.worldfloraonline.org; 全部于2020年4月访问）。但是，四年后，Hedge（在Rechinger，Fl.Iranica 57：67. 1968）的结合改善了这种观点。软骨乳亚种 Zohary等人采用的pumilum（Boiss。＆Balansa）对冲。（Consp.Fl.Orient.1：46.1980），Greuter等人。（Med‐Checklist 3：132. 1986），de Carvalho e Vasconcellos等。（在Tutin等人，Fl.Europ。，第2版，第1期：401。1993）和Fakhr Ranjberi（在Assadi等人，Fl.Iran 143：117。2017）中。但是，使用最广泛的方法是治疗L. pumilum最后一个限制在其他地方越来越普遍（例如，博纳（J.Fac.Pharm.Istanbul Univ。）44：31-62。2014;科赫（Koch）等人在《趋势科学》 23：4-6。2018，https： //brassibase.cos.uni-heidelberg.de; Al-Shehbaz＆Barriera in Boissiera 72：151. 2019）。总之，除了那些从广泛的意义上讲，该类群在亚种或最常见的物种等级上以“ plumlum ”的种名在植物学和系统上都广为人知。

名称为L. descemetii Rayneval的名称（在Bull。Soc。Bot。France 2：738. 1856中使用）恰恰相反。据一项关键的分类学工作，据我们所知，它仅被使用了四次：Janka（在TermészetrajziFüz。7：122。1883中）被用作欧洲十字花科硅藻糖的钥匙。由杰克逊（Jewson，索引2：56。1894年）所著，他显然是第一个将其列为crassifolium Waldst的同义词的人。＆套件。由Nyman（Consp。Fl。Eur。1：64. 1878）和Thellung（lc：153，156）将其归类为C. crassifolium subsp.。descemetii（Rayneval）尼曼和L. cartilagineum亚种。crassifolium变种。德塞米蒂（Rayneval）电影院。否则，descemetii要么被不严格地索引（Nyman，Suppl。Syll。Fl。Eur.：38。1865； Band。Soc。Bot.France 45：228。1898； Bandch，lc 1907：111； Latowski，lc ：55）或在注释中作为模糊的分类单元提及（Schmalhausen，Fl。Sredn。Yuzhn。Rossii 1：98. 1895）。除少数几本过时的出版物外，相关文献（例如，在此引用的所有其他作品）中都没有该名称。结果，在上述数据库中，当索引时，L。descemetii被赋予为未放置，未解析，可疑或模棱两可的名称。

然而，有足够的类型材料用于淡叶小pi在K（条形码K000653993和K000653994）。1855年11月27日，雅克·盖伊（Jacques Gay）在Alphonse de Rayneval与法国兴业银行的通讯中描述了该分类单元。从与K标本相关的信件和注释中可以明显看出，Rayneval之前曾两次将构成该标本的材料发送给盖伊，第一部分于11月17日收到，第二部分于1855年12月8日收到，盖伊很可能将其用于完善他发表的演讲的描述和文字。毫无疑问，这两部分源自1845年5月22日查尔斯·德斯梅特（Charles Descemet）在哲扎尔加奇岛（Dzharylgach Island）上的一次聚会，虽然显然是分别装在盖伊的植物标本室中，但在1868年2月通过Kooker在K收到时，L. descemetii。

我们两个人对这种全能型的独立研究得出了同样的结论，即它与L. pumilum是同种的。值得注意的是，该物种具有相当多的多态性，特别是在叶宽和形状方面，从披针形到线状丝状，并且先前的形态型对应于L. pumilum，而后者的形态对应于L. descemetii。这种多态性导致分类学混乱，涉及一个相关但较远的L. caespitosum设计 （有关详细信息，请参见《植物分类目录452：33-45。2020年德语》）。但是，鉴于两种形态型在几乎所有物种范围内的分布以及一定等级的中间体的可用性，似乎没有办法将同一实体的这些最可能的生态形式视为不同物种。在这种方法下，一个完全被忽略但三岁的名字叫L. descemetii的人将不得不取代众所周知的，成熟的L. pumilum。如果将分类单元视为软骨乳杆菌的亚种，则有必要进行类似的更改，根据Nyman（lc）在该级别上对冲的对冲（lc 1968）确定的90年优先级，因此需要创建其他组合。显然，艺术的应用。深圳法典第11条（Turland等人在Regnum Veg.159.2018中）将无法达到命名稳定性。因此，模糊的descemetii的优先级限制似乎是适当的。鉴于上述可变性，并且需要对整个软骨乳杆菌复合体（Al-Shehbaz＆Barriera，lc）进行彻底修订，因此通过Art进行保护更安全。14.1并没有根据56.1拒绝以保持L. descemetii可用于极少可能的分类学上公认的枯萎L. pumilum形态型。