Hesperis podocarpa Boiss.

AL-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. & Barriera, Gabrielle, 2019, Typification of Edmond Boissier’s Cruciferae (Brassicaceae) names enumerated in Flora Orientalis, Boissiera 72, pp. 1-193 : 74

Hesperis podocarpa Boiss. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot. ser. 2, 17: 65. 1842.

Type: “[Aucher-Eloy] N. 125, Syria ”.

Lectotypus (designated by DVOŘÁK,1966a: 165): SYRIA: sine loco, s.d., Aucher-Eloy 125 ( G [ G00371715 fruiting branch second from right]; isolecto-: P [ P00234981 ]) .

Notes. – The G [G00371715] specimen is a mixed collection, and Dvořák designated the lectotype of H. podocarpa on the branch from Syria, and correctly attributed the other three branches to H. persica from Iran. The two species are strikingly different in their pedicels and fruit base, and it is rather surprising that Boissier confused them and drafted his species description from both taxa.

Hesperis podocarpa differs from H. persica by having fruiting pedicels 8–10 mm long that are erect and appressed to stem basally and only reflexed at apex, and it has fruits substantially narrower at base. By contrast, H. persica has fruiting pedicels 5–6 mm long that are abruptly deflexed from base, and its fruits are equally wide throughout.

Other duplicates of Aucher-Eloy 125 (incl.: G [ G00371743 ], G-BOIS [ G00332234 ], K [ K000693675 , K000693676 ], MPU [ MPU013456 ], P [ P 02272575]) clearly belong to H. persica .

The G00332234 is the only unicate in G-BOIS, and one of us (IAS) erroneously annotated it in 2016 as H. podocarpa . The only other duplicate of the latter species examined in this study is P00234981 , which Dvořák annotated in 1965 as the lectotype, and this specimen is mounted with P 02272575 on the same sheet.