taxonID	type	description	language	source
621B3003DF23FFDA97AEEC07FB799175.taxon	description	Concretely, Erysimum bicorne was offered to the Kew Gardens by Francis Masson, it was brought from the Canary Islands in 1778. Francis Masson (1741 – 1805) was a British plant collector and gardener at Kew. 1760 s he travelled to London where he got a gardening job at Kew which was the directed by Sir Joseph Banks, i. e., as plant collector for Kew and working for Banks (Fry 2013). Masson’s living plants went to Kew and his herbarium specimens (mainly) to Banks and now are preserved at BM, and duplicates of Masson’s collections are in several herbaria, e. g., BR, CGE, DBN, HAL, LD, LINN, MO, PH, UPS (incl. Thunberg herbarium) (Stafleu & Cowan 1981: 361). No such specimen of this species from Masson’s collections and collected in Canary Islands, however, is present at K. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had no herbarium in the 18 th century. In addition, as indicated by Stafleu & Cowan (1976: 25) almost all types of both editions of the Hortus kewensis are in the Banksian herbarium at BM (Banks herbarium). Fortunately, in the herbarium BM there is a relevant specimen of this author collected in Canary Islands in 1778, with barcode BM 000583715. The sheet bears a well preserved specimen, four complete plants, with leaves, flowers and fruits, and a handwritten label: “ Insula Canaria. Fr. Masson 1778 ”. The geographical locality “ Insula Canaria ” and the author “ Fr. Masson ” agrees with the locality and author given in the protologue. Therefore, this specimen is undoubtedly original material of E. bicorne and it was used by Aiton for its description. We have not been able to locate any further original material in other herbaria (e. g., BR, CGE, DBN, G, HAL, LD, LINN, MO, PH, UPS) and possibly the specimen at BM is the only original material used by Aiton in the description of N. bicorne. However, as we cannot exclude that there were more than one specimen of this taxon, we consider the specimen as the lectotype of the name, admitting that the specimen might well be the holotype (see McNeill 2014). The specimen BM 000583715 is well preserved and complete, and represents the traditional concept and current use of the name (see e. g., Ball 1964, Galán Cela 1993). This specimen was indicated as “ type ” of N. bicorne by Jafri (1973: 194) “ Type: Canary Island, Masson (BM) (see http: // www. efloras. org / florataxon. aspx? flora _ id = 5 & taxon _ id = 250063814).	en	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF22FFDC97AEE9B2FDE69AB2.taxon	description	We have not found any original material of Lagasca in the herbaria consulted (e. g., BM, K, MA, MPU, P, SE). In the Candolle herbarium at G (collection G-DC) there are a relevant herbarium sheet, with two complete plants collected by Lagasca, with barcodes G 00149933 and G 00149955, with leaves and fruits. The plant with barcode G 00149955 was collected by Mariano Lagasca in 1819 in Orcelis - latin ancient name of Orihuela, province of Alicante, Spain-, this plant is accompanied by a label, annotated as “ n. 7 / Diceratium prostratum / Lag. Gen. et Spec. / Orceli / Lagasca 1819 ” and handwritten by Lagasca. On the other hand, the plant identified with barcode G 00149933 is accompanied by a label, annotated as “ Diceratium prostratum / Lag. Gen. et Spec. / rota ” handwritten by Lagasca, and “ m. Lagasca / 1819 ” handwritten by Candolle. The sheet bears also a label handwritten by Candolle “ Notoceras hispanicum DC. ” (Fig. 2). Unfortunately, these two plants were collected after 1816, and therefore are post-protologue. However, the date collected in the label that accompanied the plant G 00149933 was handwritten by Candolle, and not by Lagasca, and maybe this plant was used by Lagasca to describe Diceratium prostratum. Nevertheless, this hypothesis cannot be demonstrated and at the moment it cannot be considered as original material. In conclusion, we designate as the neotype of the name Diceratium prostratum the specimen with barcode G 00149955 (Fig. 2). The information annotated on the label that accompanied the plant match with the protologue “ Venit locis ruderatis arenoso-calcareis, Orcelis […] ”, and the plant match with the current use of the name, treated in this work as a synonym of N. bicorne.	en	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF25FFDC97AEE82CFBEC914E.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype [or perhaps holotype], indicated by Jafri (1973: 194) as “ type ”): — Spain, Canary Islands, Francis Masson s. n., 1778 (BM, barcode BM 000583715) (Fig. 1). = Diceratium prostratum Lagasca (1816: 20)	en	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF25FFDC97AEE82CFBEC914E.taxon	materials_examined	Type (neotype, designated here): — Spain, Orcelis [Orihuela, Alicante province], 1819, Lagasca 7 (G-DC, barcode G 00149955) (Fig. 2). 1 Notoceras bicorne var. hispanicum is not illegitimate under ICN Art. 58.1 (see Ex. 3) (Turland et al. 2018). Furthermore, it makes illegitimate the homotypic combination N. bicorne var. prostratum (Lag.) Pau (1931: 148) published 51 years after Willkomm’s one that takes priority at varietal rank being a replacement name.	en	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF25FFDC97AEEDECFDA69F72.taxon	description	As Candolle cited “ Diceratium prostratum. Lag! el. [Elenchus] hort. madr. 1815. p. 20 ”, this phrase is a citation of the previously validated name by Lagasca (1816: 20) supplied with a direct reference to a place of its validation since “ Elenchus plantarum ” includes complete text of simultaneously published “ Genera et species plantarum ” with the same pagination (see Stafleu & Cowan 1979: 721, available at https: // www. sil. si. edu / DigitalCollections / tl- 2 / browse. cfm? vol = 2 # page / 747). Therefore, the name N. hispanicum is an illegitimate superfluous name for D. prostratum (Art. 52.2 (e) of the ICN, see Turland et al. 2018).	en	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
