Erysimum hookeri Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 203. 1867

[nom. illeg.].

 Cheiranthus griffithii Hook. f. & Thomson in J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 5: 137. 1861.

 Erysimum griffithii (Hook. f. & Thomson) Boiss. ex Hook. f. & T. Anderson in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 1: 153. 1872.

Note. – Erysimum hookeri is illegitimate because it is superfluous for Cheiranthus griffithii .

Erysimum caespitosum var. brachycarpum Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 203. 1867.

Type: “Hab. in jugo Elbrusensi inter Asterabad et Schahrud (Bunge!)”.

Holotypus: IRAN: “In jugo Elbrusensi; inter Astrabad et Schahrud”, V.1858, Bunge 108 (G-BOIS [G00332145]; iso-: P [P00868475, P05413799]) .

= Erysimum caespitosum DC., Syst. Nat. 2: 496. 1821.

Note. – The P05413799 duplicate has the exact printed labels of the other two duplicates above but lacks the collection number.

Erysimum persepolitanum Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient. 6: 11. 1846.

Type: “Hab. in collibus prope Persepolin et Schiraz. Kotschy No. 261, in Persiâ Aucher No. 165”.

Lectotypus (first step designated by POLATSCHEK & RECHINGER, 1968: 291; second step designated here): IRAN: “In collibus pr. ruinas u. Persepolis”, 19.IV.1842, Kotschy 261 (G-BOIS [G00154052]; isolecto-: B [B100068696], BM [BM000522230, BM000946241], BP, C [C10008836, C10008837], E [E00373151, E00373152], FR [FR0038225], G [G00002423, G00002424, G00002425], GJO, GOET [GOET002591], H [H1107639], HAL [HAL0084090], JE [JE00001846], K [K000693789], KW [KW000127966], LE [LE00013007], M, MO [MO3831822], P [P02272751, P02272752, P022727531, P02272754], PR, S, W [W0026707, W0026708, W18890154970, W18890072844], WU [WU0067616]) . Syntypus: IRAN: “Persia”, s.d., Aucher-Eloy 165 (G-BOIS [G00154053]) .

= Erysimum laxiflorum J. Gay, Erysim. Nov.: 4. 1842.

Notes. – There are four sheets of the type collection Kotschy 261 at W, and none of which was annotated by the publication of POLATSCHEK & RECHINGER (1968) or later on, and none was examined by Boissier. Therefore, second-step is needed to correct the lectotypification from W to G-BOIS.

BOISSIER (1867a: 204) corrected the collection number from Kotschy 231 to Kotschy 261, and that correction was indicated by BOISSIER (1888). Kotschy 231, which was collected on 3 June 1843 in Tochal near Tehran, was cited by BOISSIER (1867a: 342) under Aethionema trinervium .

Erysimum aciphyllum Boiss. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot. ser. 2, 17: 80. March 1842 [nom. illeg.].

 Erysimum leptocarpum J. Gay, Erysim. Nov.: 4. January 1842.

Type: “Habitat in Armeniâ (Auch. exsicc. nº 161! in herb. mus. Par.: specimen fructiferum, et igitur petalis prorsùs destitutum)”.

Holotypus: TURKEY: sine loco, 1834, Aucher-Eloy 161 (P [P02272733]; iso-: G [G00154046], K [K000075622]) .

Notes. – Boissier’s name is illegitimate because it was based on the same type collection of E. leptocarpum J. Gay.

POLATSCHEK (2011: 408) lectotypified the species based on the P 02272733 material that he annotated and indicated that isolectotypes were at G and K, both of them currently on JSTOR. These three sheets have fruiting material, and the K sheet also has a detailed handwritten description by J. Gay.

Boissier did not examine or annotate any of these three sheets. Instead, he annotated P05354918 as Erysimum aciphyllum, a flowering material that was subsequently annotated by Gay in 20 March 1842 as Erysimum leptocarpum, or more than two months after the publication of his species. All four sheets are Aucher-Eloy 161. Furthermore, both species names do not need lectotypification because both Gay and Boissier based their species descriptions on the unicates P02272733 and P05354918, respectively.

YILDRIMILI (2008: 13) lectotypified the species based on G-BOIS [G00154027], but that typification was erroneous for two reasons. First, BOISSIER (1842a) cited only Aucher-Eloy 161, not Boissier s.n., in his description of the species. Second, Yildrimili’s typification was predated by 25 years and correctly by POLATSCHEK (1983: 93) but for E. aciphyllum var. stylosum (see below).

YILDRIMILI (2008) recognized E. aciphyllum as a distinct species. However, a comparison of the types of this and E. leptocarpum shows no significant differences and, therefore, POLATSCHEK (2011) ’s reduction of the former name to synonymy of the latter is accepted.