Stoechas pedunculata was described by Philip Miller in the eighth edition of the Gardeners Dictionary (Miller 1768: Stoechas No. 2). This monumental work was the most popular horticultural lexicon of the eighteenth century and included descriptions of over 4,500 species of plants, many of them new to science (Stearn 1972).

The protologue of S. pedunculata consists of a descriptive phrase-name in Latin with a specific epithet in parentheses “2. STOECHAS (Pedunculatus) foliis lanceolato-linearibus, pedunculis longissimis” and its English translation “Stoechas with spear-shaped linear leaves, and the longest foot-stalks to the flowers”, followed by the synonym “Stoechas cauliculis non foliosis. C. B. P. 216” (this reference being to Bauhin 1623: 216, where the word ‘foliosis’ is actually spelled as ‘foliatis’) which is then erroneously translated into English as “Stoechas without foot-stalks and leaves” (in the seventh edition of the Dictionary Miller correctly translated it as “Stoechas with Foot Stalks having no Leaves on them”). The original spelling of the specific epithet ‘Pedunculatus’ is also correctable to ‘pedunculata’ under Art. 32.2 of the ICN (Turland & al. 2018), as the gender of the generic name ‘Stoechas’ is feminine.

The protologue also includes information about the origin of this species, which according to Miller “grows naturally in Spain”, and a more detailed description in the main article on the genus Stoechas: “The difference between this and the first [i.e., S. officinarum Mill.] consists in the foot-stalks, which sustain the spikes of flowers, being three times the length of those of the first, and naked, having no leaves. The spikes of flowers are longer and not so thick, and they have more coloured leaves on their tops, which are longer, and of a brighter purple colour. These differences are not accidental for I have many years propagated this plant by seeds, and have always found them the same. The flowers, seeds, and other parts are the same. Of both these there are some plants which vary in the colour of their flowers, some producing white, and others purplish flowers, but the most common colour is blue.”.

In the introductory notes about the genus Stoechas Miller explains that Linnaeus joined it to Lavandula, which indicates that he preferred to keep it and its associated species separate from the Linnaean concept. Therefore, the clear comparison that Miller makes between S. pedunculata and S. officinarum (which is the same as Lavandula stoechas L. sensu stricto) in the main text and the fact that no particular specimens are cited in the protologue mean that he probably based his idea of S. pedunculata at least partially, on the unnamed variety β of L. stoechas L., for which Linnaeus cited the same synonym as Miller, i.e. “Stoechas cauliculis non foliatis C. B. P. 216” (Linnaeus 1753: 573). Linnaeus also cited Clusius’s name “Stoechas longioribus ligulis Clus. Hist. 1 p. 344” (Clusius 1601: 344), which Miller unfortunatelly does not include in his circumscription as he typically cited just one synonym per entry for most names in the Dictionary, with very few exceptions where two or more synonyms are given.

It is thus likely that Miller actually derived the Spanish origin of S. pedunculata from Clusius’s account, who reported that it grows in Spain, Portugal, and southwestern France (“Crescit Stoechas plurimis Hispaniae, Lusitaniae, & Galliae Narbonensis locis”). Clusisus also gives two very good illustrations (Fig. 1) showing the contrasting characters between what we interpret as L. pedunculata (Mill.) Cav. (i.e., ‘Stoeachas longioribus ligulis’ of Clusius) and L. stoeachas L. (i.e., ‘Stoechas brevioribus ligulis’). It is posible that Miller’s description of S. pedunculata, especially the long, slender, leafless peduncles three times longer than those of L. stoechas, is also based on the study of these illustrations. Sadly, Clusius’s illustration is not cited in the protologue of S. pedunculata. Miller definitely owned Clusius’s work, as it is listed amongst the references in the introduction to the Dictionary, but he did not associate the illustration of ‘Stoechas longioribus ligulis’ with the name S. pedunculata anywhere in the acompanying text or in his other works, therefore we do not consider it to be part of the original material for this name.

Thirty four years after the eighth edition of the Gardeners Dictionary was published, the Spanish botanist Antonio José Cavanilles transferred Miller’s name to the genus Lavandula (Cavanilles 1802: 618), but without a direct reference to the basionym. Cavanilles (1802: 70) attributed the diagnostic phrase name of his L. pedunculata “foliis lanceolato-linearibus: pedunculis longissimis: spicis longe cristatis” to Clusius (“Clus. loco citato”), but this polynomial does not appear in any of Clusius’s works and is in fact a verbatim transcription of the Millerian diagnosis for S. pedunculata with the words ‘spicis longe cristatis’ (i.e., long, tufted spikes) added at the end. This, and the fact that Cavanilles uses the same final epithet which Miller already applied to his own name, can be interpreted as an indirect citation of Miller’s basionym under Art. 41.3 of the ICN (Turland & al. 2018), making Cavanilles’s name a valid combination. Cavanilles was also familar with Miller’s work as he included many references to the Figures of Plants (which was an illustrated supplement to the Gardners Dictionary, published separately) throughout his own work, therefore it can be also assumed that it was his presumed intent to transfer Miller’s basionym to the genus Lavandula under Art. 41.4 of the ICN (Turland & al. 2018).

Garilleti (1993: 181) treated Cavanilles’s designation as a new species name (not as a new combination) and indicated that the specimen MA 99574, collected in “Méntrida, Casa del Campo” and mounted on two separate sheets MA-01-00099574 and MA-02-00099574 (Fig. 2), was its “Material tipo” [type material]. Garilleti’s use of the word ‘tipo’ could thus potentially be corrected to ‘neotype’ of L. pedunculata (Mill.) Cav. (and its basionym S. pedunculata Mill.) under Art. 9.10 of the ICN (Turland & al. 2018), but Garilleti (1993) clearly stated in the introduction to his work that he did not intend to designate any lectotypes for Cavanilles’s names in there, so this typification cannot be accepted. He wrote: “Nuestro objetivo ha sido estudiar el herbario de A. J. Cavanilles, en ningún caso se ha concretado una lectotipificación de sus táxones” [Our aim was to study the herbarium of A. J. Cavanilles, in no case has lectotypification of his taxa been attempted] (Garilleti 1993: 5; Garilleti, pers. comm.). Because of this statement, many subsequent authors interpreted Garilleti’s citation of the “type material” in his publication as not constituting an effective typification (e.g., Knapp 2007; Buira & al. 2015; Iamonico & Valdés 2017; Ferrer-Gallego 2021). Because the word “type” was associated by Garilleti with over 1000 taxon names and their correspondig specimens, if those were to be interpreted as inadvertent lecto- or neotypifications, it would have been very disruptive to nomenclature. Therefore, we follow the established practice and consider that no effective designation of type specimens took place in Garilleti’s work.

This still leaves Miller’s name without the nomenclaturally important type specimen. Sadly, he did not cite any particular specimens in the protologue and Bauhin’s name (1623: 216) listed in the synonymy does not have a corresponding illustration, therefore a lectotype has to be selected from amongst the elements of the original material that were available to Miller before the eighth edition of the Gardeners Dictionary was published in 1768, if they exist.

Miller’s own personal herbarium, allegedly containing almost 10,000 specimens, was purchased by Sir Joseph Banks in 1774 and was later incorporated into the General Herbarium at BM (Britten 1913, Stearn 1972). Unfortunately, no specimen identifiable as L. pedunculata can now be found in Miller’s own collection at BM. There is also no material of L. pedunculata amongst the specimens of plants grown at the Chelsea Physic Garden (of which Miller was the director from 1722 to 1771) and sent to the Royal Society between 1722 and 1796 as part of an agreement between Sir Hans Sloane and the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries (see Minter 2019). This collection of nearly 4,000 specimens gathered by Miller’s assistants (not by Miller himself) was transferred to the British Museum in 1781 and integrated into the General Herbarium in the late 1880s (Stearn 1972). There are also no Miller’s specimens of L. pedunculata in the Clifford Herbarium at BM or in the Linnean Society’s collection, where his material is sometimes found. No material corresponding to S. pedunculata can also be found amongst the collection of nearly 1,500 specimens cultivated at the Chelsea Physic Garden and presented by Miller to Sir Hans Sloane between 1727 and 1739, now at BM (see Wajer 2020: 75 for details). This species is also not illustrated in the Figures of Plants (Miller 1755-1760), which was intended as an illustrated supplement to the Gardeners Dictionary, nor are there any examples of it amongst the drawings of plants cultivated at the Chelsea Physic Garden and presented by Miller and Taylor White to the Royal Society (see Stungo 1996 for the history of this collection).

In conclusion, as an exhaustive search for the original material of Stoechas pedunculata failed to locate any extant specimens, a neotype is here selected in accordance with Art. 9.13 of the ICN (Turland & al. 2018). We have selected a modern and complete specimen preserved at VAL, with barcode VAL 174683 (Fig. 3) from an exsiccatum (AHIM. Exsiccata de Flora Iberomacaronesica selecta. Asociación de Herbarios Ibero-Macaronésicos. Centuria X (2005). Núm. 0989) with duplicates at several herbaria (ABH, BCN, FCO, HUAL, LEB, LISI, MA, MAF, SANT, UPNA, VIT). The specimen selected as the neotype shows the diagnostic characters of Stoechas pedunculata Mill. (e.g., flowers stalk (peduncle) long (10-)20-30 cm, spike quite short 2-3 cm, ovate in outline; lower fertile bracts kidney shaped, the upper fertile bracts broadly obovate; coma large 3-4 cm and narrowly lanceolate to spathulate in shape; calyx appendage entire) and matches unambiguously with the traditional concept and the current use of the name (e.g., Chaytor 1937; Guinea 1972; Bolòs & Vigo 1996; López González 2001; McNaughton 2002; Upson & Andrews 2004; Ruiz de la Torre 2006; Morales 2010; Vázquez & al. 2022).

Stoechas pedunculata Mill., Gard. Dict. ed. 8, n.º 2. 16 April 1768 [‘pedunculatus’] ≡ Lavandula pedunculata (Mill.) Cav., Descr. Pl.: 70. 1802 ≡ L . stoechas subsp. pedunculata (Mill.) Samp. ex Rozeira in Agron. Lusit. 24: 173. 1964. Type: Spain, Cuenca, Talayuelas, Solana de la Chupedilla, 960 m.s.m., 30SXK5209, 1-VI-2005, J. Riera, C. Torres & J. Fabado 51027 (neotype designated here: VAL 174683) Fig. 3. Isoneotypes: ABH 49892, BCN 38902, FCO 28620, HUAL 17826, LEB 84537, LISI-IBER 11/2006-1, MA00751283, MAF 166652, SANT 54391, UPNA 10288, VIT 77464.