Camelina grandiflora Boiss., Diagn. Pl.

AL-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. & Barriera, Gabrielle, 2019, Typification of Edmond Boissier’s Cruciferae (Brassicaceae) names enumerated in Flora Orientalis, Boissiera 72, pp. 1-193 : 112

Camelina grandiflora Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient. 5: 82. 1844.

Type: “Hab. in Cariâ undè aest. 1843 retulit Chr. Pinard”.

Holotypus: TURKEY: “Caria”, 1843, Pinard s.n. ( G-BOIS [ G00332478 ]; iso-: B [ B100241011 ], BM [ BM001254100 ], G [ G00446228 , G00446229 , G00446265 ], K [ K000725083 ], MO [ MO3729731 ], P [ P05325035 , P05325037 , P05325039 , P05325041 ], W [ W0075595 ], WAG [ WAG0004250 ]) .

Notes. – The holotype is a collection folder of three sheets of which two are unlabeled.

Camelina hispida , together with C. lasiocarpa and C. grandiflora , form a species complex that can be readily distinguished on the bases of fruit and stem indumentum and orientation of the fruiting pedicels. HEDGE (1965: 493) reduced the latter two to varieties of the first, though he admitted that more taxa at the specific and infraspecific ranks may eventually be recognized.

In our opinion, the differences between the three taxa above are quite settled, as C. hispida has rigid, divaricate to horizontal, often hispid fruiting pedicels and glabrous fruit. Both C. lasiocarpa and C. grandiflora have ascending fruiting pedicels subappressed to rachis, but the former has hispid (vs glabrous fruit), hispid rachis of fruiting raceme (vs glabrous or rarely sparsely pilose), and pedicels without (vs with) a tuft of axillary hairs.

Molecular phylogenetic studies are being conducted in more than one lab, and it is hoped that they resolve some of the entangled taxonomy of the genus, which most likely caused by hybridization, polyploidy, and introgression. In our opinion, it would be better to maintain the three species until future studies prove otherwise.