(2817) Proposal to conserve the name Erysimum violascens ( Cruciferae )

(2817) Erysimum violascens Popov in Byull. Sredne-Aziatsk. Gosud. Univ. 9, Suppl.: 24. 1925 [Angiosp.: Cruc.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: [Tajikistan:] “Prov. Samarkand, distr. Chodshent. Montes Mogol-Tau. Ad declivia saxosa valle Utsch-Bach”, 6 Mai 1924, et Vvedensky [Herb. Fl. As. Med., exs. No. 91] (TASH 9422; isotypi: B barcodes 10 0263584 & 0263585, BP, BR, BRNU 131332, C, E barcode E00231860, G G00374261, GH, K K000693844 K000693845, KW, LE (2×), MHA, MW MW0592635, NY 01163553, P P02272774, S S-G-10205, TBI, TK, W 1927-0011442). Mikhail Grigorievich inadvertently (in the identification key, Russian) but validly published cyaneum (Opredel. Rast. Okrest. Tashkenta [Key Pl. Environm. Tashkent]: 157. 1924). Shortly thereafter he (Popov 1925) described another species of a purple-flowered wallflower, E. (description Latin, diagnosis French) supplied with following note (originally French except for book title Russian): “E. by me Russian ‘Key Envir. Tashkent, p. 157’, as far I could conclude based on incomplete specimens, somewhat differs from here issued plant characters: siliquae strictly tetragonal, slightly moniliform because bulging out seeds and thick very short, nearly absent style. consider it should best be treated variety – var. tschimganicum m. (E. M. Pop. l. c.).” At that moment subsequent decade, under Brussels Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2. 1912) then force, this meant nothing change Popov's viewpoint regarding taxonomic status latter entity to had no nomenclatural consequences since neither names applied it, both after 1 January 1908 lacking Latin description, was l.c. 1912: Art. 36). The situation changed 1935 when became, retroactively, Bot. Nomencl., 3: 58. 1935). valid publication made illegitimate 52 current Shenzhen Code (Turland al. Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). However, practice fact never taken into consideration authors, appears an accepted name all relevant treatments (e.g., Busch Komarov, URSS 8: 125. 1939; Botschantzev Korovin, Uzbekist. 90. 1955; Zakirov, Rastitel'n. Basseina Reki Zeravshan 2: 166. 1961; Opredel. Severn. Tajikistana: 220. 1967; Adylov Vvedensky, Consp. Asiae Mediae 4: 78. 1974; Junussov Ovczinnikov, Tadzhikskoĭ SSR 5: 67. 1978; Polatschek Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 111: 215. 2010), checklists (Czerepanov, Addit. Corrig. URSS: 134. 1973, Vasc. 133. 1981, Russia Adjac. States: 139. 1995; Warwick Syst. Evol. 259: 249–258. 2006; Tojibaev al., Invent. Uzbekistan, Samarkand Reg.: 128. 2018, Uzbekist., Kashkadarya 150. 2019a, Navoiy 119. 2019b) databases (Freiberg Sci. Data 7: 416. 2020; Francis Biodivers. J. 9: e58733. 2021, http://ipt.pensoft.net/resource?r=aafc-brassicaceae-checklist&v=1.6; Global Biodiversity Information Facility, https://gbif.org; Plants World Online, http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org; Species 2000 ITIS Catalogue Life, https://www.catalogueoflife.org; Checklist Vascular Plants, https://wcvp.science.kew.org; Tropicos.org, http://www.tropicos.org; Flora http://www.worldfloraonline.org; accessed 3 Mar 2021). Taxonomically, is indeed close (the also generally accepted, e.g., above-mentioned sources Busch, l.c., who followed Popov, distinct species. For 85 years synonyms at rank until (l.c.) first time regarded nuratense ex Botsch. Vved. Mater. Gerb. Inst. Zool. Akad. Nauk Uzbeksk. S.S.R. 12: 6. 1948) conspecific violascens. This reflected some recent publications (Tojibaev online resources l.c.; Online; Plants; Online), although alternative approach treating nuratense, accordance previous accounts Adylov, l.c.: 167; Kamelin Zhurn. (Moscow Leningrad) 58: 625–638. 1973), separate endemic Nuratau Mts. (Uzbekistan) still preferred experts regional flora (N.Yu. Beshko, pers. comm. litt.). One more name, franchetii N. 1939: 639), mentioned last potential Although, proposed (l.c. 1955: 91), considered synonym samarkandicum (and even, though incorrectly, superfluous one Polatschek, 207), original material yet untypified includes syntypes representing typification might become latter. such radical application 67 being violascens), not decision planned lectotypification specimen (German, prep.) preserve quo. Hence, three possibilities solving problem are available, namely: (1) start using instead it; (2) adopt new sense; or (3) conserve only applicable broad concept discussion adopted; otherwise auct., s.str. stays nameless requires name. second option franchetii) ruled severe negative nomenclature Erysima Middle Asia. By contrast, conservation conserves enables continuous well-established sense which unambiguous persistent use century irrespective whether not. definite advantage that, covered ICN 7.6, necessarily homotypic causing its illegitimacy cyaneum) accordingly lectotypified Gureyeva Sist. Zametki Krylova Tomsk. 106: 14. 2012), comments invalid type designations, part gathering exsiccate accompanying description available many herbaria world. Obviously, contrary other options, has shortcomings therefore way handling problem. DAG, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7951-1644 am deeply grateful Alexander Nikolaevich Sennikov advice Natalia Yurievna Beshko fruitful exchange opinions. Careful editing John McNeill Wiersema greatly appreciated well.