(3140–3141) Proposals to conserve the names Caucalis and Caucalis daucoides (Orlaya daucoides) ( Umbelliferae ) with conserved types

(3140) Caucalis L., Sp. Pl.: 240. 1 May 1753 Angiosp.: Umbell., nom. cons. prop. Typus: C. platycarpos L., typ. cons. prop. Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 240. 1753) described Caucalis (Umbelliferae) as a genus that included six species (C. grandiflora, C. daucoides, C. mauritanica, C. platycarpos, C. orientalis, C. leptophylla). Subsequent authors restricted the Linnaean concept of the genus (see Hoffmann, Gen. Pl. Umbell.: 54. 1814; Reichenbach, Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. 21: 83, t. 169. 1866; Druce in Engler Greuter in Boissiera 13: 92. 1967), and currently this taxon is considered to comprise only one species, C. platycarpos L. (l.c.: 241). Caucalis daucoides L. (l.c.: 241) was first selected as the type of the genus by Hitchcock (in Sprague based on C. grandiflora L., l.c.: 240). A proposal to conserve the name C. daucoides with a conserved type to preserve the usage in Orlaya appears below. According to the identity of the proposed type, if the proposal is successful the name would be unambiguously associated with the genus Orlaya. However, since the name Caucalis has priority over Orlaya, the name Caucalis would have to be applied to the plants currently included within Orlaya, and another name, e.g., Nigera Bubani (Fl. Pyren. 2: 404. 1899), according to the Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project, would need to be used for the plants presently treated under the genus Caucalis. To limit the number of nomenclatural changes and preserve the stability of these two generic names, it is necessary to propose a conserved type for the name Caucalis under Art. 14.9. of the ICN (Turland designated by Heywood in Agron. Lusit. 22: 11. 1960) is unambiguous. If this conservation proposal is rejected, regardless of the fate of the second proposal below, application of the name Caucalis would be restricted to the three species traditionally placed in Orlaya (O. daucoides, O. grandiflora, O. daucorlaya Murb. in Acta Univ. Lund. 27(5): 119. 1892), and a new combination in the genus Nigera would be required to accommodate the species currently included in Caucalis. I believe that nomenclatural stability can only be achieved through the conservation of the name Caucalis with C. platycarpos as the conserved type. (3141) Caucalis daucoides L., Sp. Pl.: 241. 1 May 1753 Angiosp.: Umbell., nom. cons. prop. Typus: France, “Moissons des terrains argileux près d'Agen (Lot-et-Garonne)”, 3 Jun 1853, Pommaret in Billot, Fl. Gall. Germ. Exs. No. 1209 (G barcode G01094328 on 2 sheets; only whole plant with flowers, excl. fragm., on sheet labelled “Typus 2/2”; isotypus: BR barcode BR0000035268031 middle specimen), typ. cons. prop. The name Orlaya daucoides (L.) Greuter (in Boissiera 13: 92. 1967) (Umbelliferae), based on Caucalis daucoides L. (Sp. Pl.: 241. 1753), is applied to a species distributed across the southwestern Mediterranean Basin and extending eastward into the Caucasus and northern Iran (Plants of the World Online, POWO, accessed 29 Sep 2025). The species is an annual herb reaching up to 50 cm in height; the lower leaves are pilose, 2- to 3-pinnate, with ultimate segments pinnatisect; leaf blades are triangular; the cauline leaves are similar but smaller and less divided; umbels are mostly terminal, with some leaf-opposed; rays are few, usually 2–3 (occasionally up to 5), fruiting rays 2–3, (0.5–)1–2 cm long, rigid and erecto-patent; bracts 2–3, conspicuous, lanceolate, ciliate, with scarious margins, generally as long as the rays; fruits 8–11(–15) mm long; primary ridges setulose, secondary ridges with 1(–2) rows of long, uncinate spines (Heywood in Tutin Cullen, Fl. Turkey: 529–531. 1972; Jury, Fl. Iberica 10: 126. 2003; El Alaoui Tison flosculis disci, f. masculis parvis, aequalibus; radii flosculis petalis maximis bipartitis albis. In praecedente involucrum umbella dimidio brevius the disc florets are small, equal, male; the ray florets have very large, white, bipartite petals. In the previous specimen, the involucre is half as short as the umbel; the ray petals are more rounded). In the protologue, Linnaeus explicitly cited a potential gathering as “Habitat Monspelii. D. Sauvages”. However, this reference, i.e., “Monspelii” and “D. Sauvages”, cannot be linked to any known specimen. Perhaps Linnaeus received the plant he described from Sauvages. Since Linnaeus also obtained Magnol's herbarium through Sauvages, it could also be considered that the plants used by Linnaeus to describe the species and those employed by Magnol for his “Caucalis dauci sylvestris folio, echinato magno fructu” (cited by Linnaeus in the protologue) are identical. According to Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 226. 2007), François Boissier de la Croix de Sauvages (1706–1767) donated his herbarium from southern France to Linnaeus in 1749. However, no specimens annotated as “Monsp.” have been found in any Linnaean and Linnaean-linked herbaria for this species. In the herbarium LINN, there are several sheets that bear specimens of this species, e.g., Herb. Linnaeus No. 338.4, 338.5, and 338.6. However, none of them is labeled with the species number that appears in the Species plantarum of 1753, that is, the number “2”. Only sheet 338.4 is annotated as “4 daucoides” (but not “2 daucoides”), and therefore this material cannot be treated as original material used by Linnaeus to describe his species Caucalis daucoides. Heywood (in Agron. Lusit. 22: 13. 1960) noted that none of the specimens in Linnaeus's herbarium can be clearly identified as the type, and that Linnaeus's description does not allow for a precise identification of the species. Heywood (l.c. 1960) concluded that the name should be rejected as a nomen ambiguum, taking up Orlaya kochii Heywood (l.c. 1960) instead. This name was adopted by several authors (a search in Google Scholar yielded 117 results for O. kochii; accessed on 29 Sep 2025); however, it is currently treated as a heterotypic synonym of O. daucoides (see, e.g., Hand in Euro+Med Plantbase. 2011; POWO, l.c.; Tropicos.org. 2025; World Flora Online WFO. 2025; all accessed 29 Sep 2025). Greuter (l.c.: 93) mentioned that no original material of Orlaya daucoides was thought to exist and therefore designated a specimen (G barcode G01094328 on 2 sheets) as the “neotype”: “Moissons des terrains argileux près d'Agen (Lot-et-Garonne), 3/29 June 1853, C. de Pommaret (in Billot, Flora Galliae et Germaniae exsiccata: num. 1209; holo- G)”. However, the material at G from C. Billot's exsiccata (No. 1209) bears a label indicating two collection dates: “Fleurs le 3 juin, fruits le 29 juin 1853”, which demonstrate that the material belongs to two separate gatherings (see Art. 8.2, its footnote, and Ex. 3). Therefore, not all of the material can serve as a type, and only a single specimen from these two gatherings should have been designated as the type. In the same year, Fernandes (in Bol. Soc. Brot., ser. 2, 41: 398. 1967) lectotypified the name Caucalis daucoides based on a Linnaean collection at S-LINN. The S-LINN sheet (IDC 118.1 and No. S-G-10364) bears a plant fragment with a leaf and an umbel with flowers, but no fruits. The sheet is annotated “2 Daucoides” at the base, and is accompanied by a handwritten label annotated by François Sauvages as “Caucalis Dauci sylvestris folio”, which is part of the polynomial published by Magnol (l.c.) and cited in the protologue by Linnaeus. On the reverse is annotated “a Linné P.” handwritten by Anders Dahl (1751–1789, a Swedish botanist and student of Linnaeus). This specimen can be treated as original material of the name (see Jarvis, l.c.) and appears to represent the sole extant original specimen, as no additional original material for this species could be traced in Linnaean or Linnaean-linked herbaria. However, this specimen can clearly be identified as Orlaya grandiflora (L.) Hoffm. (Gen. Pl. Umbell.: 58. 1814; based on Caucalis grandiflora L., l.c. 1753: 240) (e.g., the specimen has the upper cauline leaves pinnatisect; umbels with more than 5 rays; bracts more than 3; outer petals up to 10 times longer than the inner ones) (see below). Undoubtedly, the lectotypification of this name based on this specimen would compromise the nomenclatural stability of this plant group. However, since Fernandes (l.c.) typified the name Orlaya daucoides in the sense of O. grandiflora, the name “Orlaya platycarpos W.D.J. Koch” (i.e., sensu auct., non Orlaya platycarpos (L.) W.D.J. Koch in Nova Acta Phys.-Med. Acad. Caes. Leop.-Carol. Nat. Cur. 12(1): 79. 1824, based on Caucalis platycarpos L., l.c. 1753: 241 ≡ C. daucoides L., Syst. Nat. ed. 12, 2: 205. 1767, nom. illeg., non L., Sp. Pl.: 241. 1753), has been adopted by several authors for the species previously referred to as O. daucoides (L.) Greuter (see, e.g., Heywood, l.c. 1968; Gamisan Reduron, Ombell. France 2: 750–767. 2007, 4: 1918–1923. 2008; Tison Verloove Jury, l.c.: 93). It is a plant characterized by bracts that are absent or 1–2 and linear, with scarious margins absent or very narrow, and much shorter than the peduncles. The outer florets bear subequal petals. On the other hand, O. daucoides can be distinguished by having 2–3(–5) rays, 2–3 bracts, and outer petals only 2–3 times as long as the inner ones, whereas O. grandiflora bears (3–)5–8(–12) rays, (3–)5–8 bracts, and outer petals reaching up to 10 times the length of the inner ones. In addition, O. grandiflora is further characterized by upper cauline leaves entire to pinnatisect and by spines on the secondary dorsal ridges that are 2- to 3-seriate, ± cylindric, and not confluent at the base (see, e.g., Heywood, l.c. 1960, 1968; Jury, l.c.; El Alaoui Pignatti, Fl. d'Italia, ed. 2, 3: 626–627. 2018 O. daucoides under O. kochii Heywood). Accordingly, for the purpose of nomenclatural stability and to support the continued and well-established use of the name Orlaya daucoides, I propose to conserve its basionym Caucalis daucoides L. (l.c. 1753) with a conserved type under Art. 14.9. In conclusion, I here propose a specimen from the gatherings selected by Greuter (l.c.) as the “neotype” of the name (i.e., G barcode G01094328 however, as the barcode on 2 sheets includes two gatherings, as indicated on the label: “Fleurs le 3 juin, fruits le 29 juin 1853”, the specimen selected is the whole plant with flowers, excluding fruiting fragments, on the sheet lacking the collection label, but identified with a label annotated as “Typus 2/2”) as the conserved type of Orlaya daucoides. Rejection of the present proposal would have undesirable consequences, because the name Orlaya daucoides, which has been unambiguously and frequently used (a search on Google Scholar on 25 Nov 2025 yielded 107 results for O. platycarpos compared to 436 for O. daucoides; and 50 versus 377 since 2000), might be replaced by O. topaliana Beauverd (in Candollea 7: 262, t. 7, fig. 1–7. 1937) (with holotype G barcode G00367040), a later heterotypic synonym of O. daucoides, and the name O. daucoides would be a heterotypic synonym of O. grandiflora. The old synonym Daucus lappula Weber (in Wiggers, Prim. Fl. Holsat.: 23. 1780), sometimes included as a heterotypic synonym of Caucalis daucoides, is illegitimate (Art. 52). Thanks to Dr. Laurence Loze (G) for his assistance in the study of the herbarium sheets. I am also grateful to Dr. John Wiersema and Dr. Melanie Schori for their guidance, support, and valuable comments that have improved this proposal.