Thuillier (1790) published the name V. ‌ocymifolia based on Vaillant et al. (1727 : 202) “16. Veronica ‌minor annua, ocymi caryophyllati folio, subtus rubro, flore caeruleo”. No specimen labelled V. ‌ocymifolia by Vaillant, nor a specimen of V. ‌praecox, to which the plants presumably belong of Vaillant, was found in the herbarium in Paris. However, authentic material from Thuillier labeled V. ‌ocymifolia is available in Paris and Munich. These plants correspond to V. ‌praecox. The character distinguishing these from typical V. ‌praecox is the reddish leaves. However, reddish leaves are common in many species of Veronica and not sufficient to name a new species. They are designated as neotypes here since it is not clear whether these specimens were collected before 1790.

The second name based on a description of Vaillant is V. ‌squamosa var. vaillantii ‌Rchb. This name was published by Reichenbach (1833 [1830-2]) and mostly associated with V. ‌barrelieri. The specimens encountered in Reichenbach’s exsiccata (e.g., no. 2189Veronica ‌vaillantii, coll. Fleischmann from “Krain, vom Jeshza nächst Laibach”) certainly belong to V. ‌barrelieri. However, this species does not occur in the area of Paris from where it was described by Vaillant. The description by Reichenbach and Vaillant fits also with V. ‌spicata under whose synonymy it should be classified. Rouy (1909) provided the combination V. ‌spicata var. vaillantii for his Flore de France, which caused some confusion whether V. ‌barrelieri occurs in France, but this is not the case. Since Reichenbach probably did not see the herbarium of Vaillant, it is best to lectotypify the name with the illustration in Vaillant et al. (1727) and epitypify it with the specimen from the Vaillant herbarium from Bois de Boulogne to fix the synonymy of the name correctly.

The importance of the specimen is that the genus Hebe was described by Jussieu (1789) attributing the name to Commerson without assigning a species to the genus but commenting on the specimens by Commerson. The first species of Hebe, Hebe ‌magellanica, was described two years later by Gmelin (1791). It is not clear why Gmelin did not pick up the original name Hebe ‌laurentina of Commerson. The genus gained acceptance only after 1921 when Pennell (1921) and then Cockayne & Allan (1926) started transferring the shrubby species of Veronica from New Zealand to the genus. Nowadays, Hebe is considered a section in a wider Veronica again ( Garnock-Jones et al. 2007) but the original species was never lectotypified. It is a synonym of the older V. ‌elliptica ‌G.Forst.

Veronica ‌nudicaulis was described from the European Alps but with V. ‌aphylla mentioned in synonymy (Lamarck 1778). The description differs from V. ‌aphylla L. (Linnaeus 1753) in having a terminal inflorescence, but this is sometimes easy to overlook. The specimen in his herbarium (P-LAM[P00358059]) matches V. ‌aphylla. So, we need to assume that Lamarck did not find the epithet “ aphylla ” appropriate. Lamarck continued to use the name V. ‌nudicaulis until 1805 (Lamarck & De Candolle 1805), when he mentioned V. ‌nudicaulis as variety ß under V. ‌aphylla, differing from typical V. ‌aphylla by the capsule being obtuse and not notched.

Veronica ‌subacaulis was also described from the European Alps as having a short stem with a two-flowered inflorescence on a leafless peduncle and obcordate capsules. This description matches that of V. ‌aphylla L., which is not mentioned by Lamarck (1791) but rather he continued to use V. ‌nudicaulis, which he distinguished from V. ‌subacaulis by the shape of the capsule (ovate, not obcordate) and insertion of the peduncle (terminal, not lateral). Also, the specimen of V. ‌subacaulis in his herbarium (P-LAM[P00358058]) matches V. ‌aphylla. I assume that the difference between the two capsule types is likely to be based either on developmental stage or nutritional status.

As the case above suggests, Lamarck seemed to be rather liberal with the priority of names when the name does not fit to him. In the Flore françoise (Lamarck 1778) he published two further names, citing older names in synonymy, V. ‌sempervirens ‌Lam. citing V. ‌ponae ‌Gouan in synonymy and V. ‌digitata ‌Lam. citing V. ‌triphyllos L. in synonymy (later both corrected by De Candolle (Lamarck & De Candolle 1815).

A third new name, V. ‌laevis, is more difficult. Lamarck refers in his description to “ Veronica ‌minima clinopodii folia, glabra, romana. Tournef. p. 144”. On page 144 of Tournefort (1700) the name is referred to: “Bocc. Mus. Part. 2. 19. Tab. 102”. Boccone (1697) gives an incomplete description on p. 19 but states a blue flower. The table clearly shows V. ‌acinifolia based on habit, leaf shape, and bract and pedicel length and clearly not V. ‌peregrina, to which this species of Lamarck has commonly been referred (e.g., Link et al. 1831 ; Aniotsbéhère 1999). No herbarium specimen was found in the herbarium of Lamarck, so the best solution is to lectotypify the name with the illustration in Boccone.

Another new name published based on material of Lamarck is V. ‌arvensis var. nana ‌DC., a dwarf form of V. ‌arvensis, published by August-Pyrame de Candolle, a student of Lamarck and co-worker on the Flore française project, who later became founder of the Jardin botanique de Genève.

Material sent by Michaux is said to be grown in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Paris. The specimen of V. ‌michauxii in the Lamarck herbarium (P-LAM[P00358024]) is certainly original material, whereas the specimen in the general herbarium P (P04023177) from the herbarium Durand, bearing a label from 1969 that it may be type material, does not show any sign that Lamarck has seen it. Genetic and morphological studies on V. ‌anagallis-aquatica and putative relatives in Iran recently demonstrated that V. ‌michauxii is a variety, which can occur intermixed with other varieties within the same populations ( Hosseinnejad Azad et al. 2020 , 2021). However, in the light of ongoing phylogenetic analyses, which make it likely to differentiate between a European species (V. ‌anagallis-aquatica ‌s.str. ) and species of the Near East, for which the earliest available name is V. ‌michauxii, I refrain from making nomenclatural changes.

Veronica ‌nitida ‌Poir. is a name of unclear taxonomic identity. Poiret mentioned the origin from the Jardin des Plantes Paris and the long inflorescences, the lanceolate, subdentate, and glabrous leaves. Schultes (1822) was the first to recognize the homonymy with V. ‌nitida ‌Ehrh. and renamed Poiret’s plant V. ‌lutetiana, linking it with V. ‌teucrium. Desfontaines (1829) mentioned the name V. ‌nitida with a more elaborate description, neither mentioning Poiret nor Schultes. Walpers (1844-45), separating V. ‌lutetiana from V. ‌teucrium and V. ‌satureiifolia, ascribed the name to Desfontaines (“in mss.”), likely referring to the catalog of garden plants from Paris, of which Desfontaines was director, or to some unpublished manuscript elaborating on the plants described in the catalog from the Botanical Garden. Given the origin from the Botanical Garden, it is possible that Desfontaines is actually the original source for the name, even though not mentioned by Poiret, and communicated the name and specimens of the plant to his friend Poiret, with whom he travelled in 1783-1785 in North Africa (de Candolle 1834). In the herbarium Poiret in P, there is one specimen labelled “ V. ‌nitida h.p.” with a later addition “Desfont. Catl. Descrip.” fitting the description of Poiret (1817) and Desfontaines (1829) perfectly and appearing closer to V. ‌satureiifolia. Still, since the specimen does not have a date, we cannot be sure that it is original material and we follow others (e.g., Giacò et al. 2021) in calling the specimen a neotype.

Veronica ‌persica is the most widespread species of Veronica with an almost cosmopolitan distribution as an urban weed (Lehmann 1906). It is a tetraploid hybrid of V. ‌polita and V. ‌ceratocarpa that likely originated in northern Iran (Fischer 1987). Its first arrival in Europe is likely in the 16 th century but it became widespread only in the 19 th century (Lehmann 1906). It grew in the Jardin des Plantes de Paris and the name was published by Poiret (1808). Sánchez Agudo et al. (2012) did not find original material and neotypified the name with plants collected in the gardens in 1813 and possibly handwriting of Lamarck. However, specimens P00789664 and P00789667 in the herbarium Poiret appear to be good candidates for original material despite no date mentioned. Following the reasoning above, however, they don’t qualify as lectotype due to the lack of a date and it seems unnecessary to override a neotypification with another neotypification, especially since there is no taxonomic difference.

Veronica ‌excelsa is a garden variety of V. ‌longifolia with narrow, strongly dentate, acute leaves. The affinity of this species is mentioned on the herbarium sheets and exemplified by its position just below that species in the catalogue (Desfontaines 1829). The lectotype is chosen from the herbarium Desfontaines in FI despite the meager information on the label. The two specimens in P are from the herbarium Poiret with the notes “Desf. Catal. Altit. 8-10 ped. Aff. W. marit.” and “h.p. Octobre h. Poiret”.

The name V. ‌prasifolia was published in the same publication as a synonym of V. ‌arguta ‌Schrad. but is worth mentioning here since there is some taxonomic confusion around this name. On the label of the specimen in the herbarium Desfontaines in FI (FI086072), the name is attributed to Sprengel, but the name was not found in the works of Sprengel. The specimen is stated to resemble V. ‌arguta, which is considered to be a hybrid of V. ‌longifolia with V. ‌spicata ‌ ( Härle 1932), characterized by shallowly serrate to crenate leaf margins but with V. ‌longifolia habit. Thus, the name should be synonymized with V. × media Schrad. Specimens of V. ‌prasifolia from the Botanical Garden in Paris can also be found in P and in other herbaria (e.g., K, KW, MPU, the latter two collected after publication) but the herbarium specimens markedly differ from the specimen in FI. These plants belong to V. ‌teucrium based on axillary inflorescences and leaf shape. On the specimen in P (herbarium Spach) from 1827, before the publication in Desfontaines (1829), the name V. ‌latifolia, a synonym of V. ‌teucrium, has been added later, indicating that the different identity has been observed before.

Veronica ‌xalapensis was described from Mexico “prope Xalapa” as an erect, pubescent plant with oblong leaves with crenulate margin and solitary flowers, axillary, on short peduncle. Paris houses a specimen labelled “ Veronica ‌xalapensis ” without further notes (P00670566), whereas the specimen labelled “ Veronica ‌xalapensis ” in Berlin (B-W 00249-050) is numbered “ 2227 ”, “ V. ‌chillensis ” crossed out and a reference to Kunth (1823). The reference to the page in Kunth suggests a later addition of the label. The specimen in Berlin is not considered type material of V. ‌xalapensis since the number “ 2227 ” refers to the notebook of Bonpland and Humboldt (Bonpland & Humboldt 1799-1804) and a collection from Ecuador. Thus, the Paris specimen is considered the only original material.

Veronica ‌chillensis was described from “Regni Quitensis prope Chillo” as creeping and pubescent with oblong-spathulate leaves with serrate margin and flowers subsessile. Calyx lobes are supposed to be lanceolate and reflexed in fruit. There is a specimen in Paris (P00670567) sparsely labelled with the name only. Unfortunately, the specimen differs from the protologue in having only a short (3cm) creeping stem with adventitious roots and the main plant being erect. The leaves are not well preserved, although the leaves appear not to be serrate. The calyx lobes are lanceolate but not reflexed. The specimen in Berlin (B-W 00250-010) labelled V. ‌chillensis resembles the plant from Paris but also does not bear more information. It was later labelled as Veronica ‌peruviana by Willdenow. Further material to be considered are those two specimens labelled “ 2227 ” (P04079053, B-W 00249-050). The notebook (Bonpland & Humboldt 1799-1804) states under that number a Veronica collected from Chillo (near Quito) collected together with plants similar to V. ‌peregrina (“cum Veronica ‌peregrina aff.”). The name “ peregrina ” was later added to the notebook. It is noteworthy that the description in the notebook and the description on the specimen in Paris (P04079053) state that the plant is creeping. Indeed, the plant seems to have re-rooted due to adventive roots near the bottom part of the inflorescence. Many species of Veronica are known to form adventitious roots when the stem comes into secondary contact with wet soil, which frequently happens in disturbed sites. Thus, it appears that all four plants are from Chillo, near Quito, then considered part of Peru, thus the name V. ‌peruviana ‌Willd. The specimen P04079053 appears to have caused the authors to assume they have found a new species with affinities to V. ‌peregrina, and this specimen should be the lectotype.

Veronica ‌herniarioides was collected by Pourret in Jacca/Jaca from the province Huesca and added to his manuscript under no. 60 (Lapeyrouse 1818). As such it is to be expected that the type specimen can be found in MAF. It is described as having a dense terminal raceme with deep blue flowers. The leaves are small, obovate, and glabrous with an entire margin. The stem is described as prostrate and rooting. Lapeyrouse (1818) inserted V. ‌herniarioides after V. ‌serpyllifolia, suggesting a relationship, which was, however, not followed by subsequent authors who considered it a synonym of V. ‌alpina (Dietrich 1831; Römpp 1928). Martinez-Ortega & Rico (2001b) considered it a synonym of V. ‌serpyllifolia and mentioned that no authentic material was found in MAF. So, the type specimen likely burnt in Orense in 1808. The specimen in P (P04933114) is clarifying that the name is, however, a synonym of V. ‌nummularia, a species endemic to the Pyrénées and the description fits, in fact, better to this species. The specimen does not belong to the herbarium Barbier and bears the location “Jacca”, which clarifies that the specimen is from Spain, but it is unclear when it was collected and how it came to the herbarium Timothée Puel, a doctor of medicine in Paris. Therefore, it is safest to consider it a neotype.

In 1832, Rafinesque published two new species based on plants from Bartram’s Botanic Garden, a then renowned nursery. With regards to V. ‌sparsiflora, Rafinesque (1832) claimed that the plant was an “annual native of Arkanzas or Texas, received from Prof. Nuttall”. Later, Rafinesque (1838) claimed that it is common in “Arkanzas and Missouri” and that it belongs to his subgenus Beccabunga. However, Pennell (1921) stated that he did not know any species of Veronica fitting to the description and suggested that it is either a foreign species of the genus or not a Veronica at all. Later, Pennell (1935b) stated that he saw the type specimen in P without typification and concluded that “probably Rafinesque erred as to the source, and his material came from the Old World”. In fact, there are two specimens of the same species fitting to the description of Rafinesque in P. Both have labels with handwriting of Rafinesque based on comparison with photos of Rafinesque’s labels in Stuckey (1971b). Both refer to the Atlantic Journal, one claiming that the plant comes from Texas showing a flowering specimen, the other with a fruiting specimen from “Texas & Arkanzas”. No further information is available on the specimens. Based on close inspection of the specimens, it is evident that Pennell (1935b) was correct with his reference to the Old World and the specimens belong to V. ‌gentianoides, an ornamental plant from the Caucasus. It is not clear whether the false information on the origin of the plant is the fault of Rafinesque or Bartram’s garden. Since there is no indication of the year, one cannot be sure that the specimens in P were in fact collected before the description of the species and, thus, they are designated as neotypes.

Fenzl (1843) described V. ‌capensis based on a specimen for which he did not mention the exact locality but just generally that it is from the Cape. Sellers (1983) mentioned a type of V. ‌capensis in W, but it is not entirely clear whether Sellers really saw the specimen or just expected it there. Despite searching the herbarium W, the specimen has not been found, yet, and Drege (1843) did not mention the species. In fact, the specimen of V. ‌anagallis-aquatica from the Garip/Orange River is the only specimen of the genus mentioned by Drege (1843). Additionally, the description of V. ‌capensis fits to V. ‌anagallis-aquatica and even better to the particular specimen in the general herbarium of P. I, therefore, conclude that V. ‌capensis is a synonym of V. ‌anagallis-aquatica. Therefore, the specimen in P is important at the moment to verify the identity of the name V. ‌capensis. However, despite being labelled V. ‌capensis, it is not clear whether Fenzl saw the specimen in P and whether this is indeed the same collection as the one used by Fenzl for the description of V. ‌capensis. A typification is, therefore, premature without a closer inspection of the herbarium in W.

Veronica ‌chamaedrys is a polymorphic species distributed across Europe from the southernmost Peninsulas to Scandinavia and from the British Isles to the Urals and further to the Altai Mountains. Bardy et al. (2010) demonstrated that the populations of Greece and adjacent regions are genetically and morphologically slightly distinct. For these populations, the correct name is V. ‌chamaedrys subsp. chamaedryoides based on the name by Bory and Chaubard. As expected, based on Bureau (1904) the type specimen is in the herbarium Drake in P. The specimen does not have a date but has notes by Chaubard indicating his change in opinion from V. ‌chamaedrys to a new species.

In their work, Bory and Chaubard (Bory & Chaubard 1832, 1838) also mentioned V. ‌peduncularis, a species from the Caucasus, to occur in Greece. Boissier & Reuter (1856) realized the mistake and published V. ‌chaubardii in honor of Chaubard for these Greek plants. Apart from specimens collected by Bory, also those others mentioned by Boissier (1856) are original material. In P, there are two specimens of V. ‌chaubardii from Bory and Chaubard, one is labelled V. ‌amoena ‌Heldr., a synonym of V. ‌peduncularis mentioned by Bory & Chaubard (1832), the other has no name. The name V. ‌amoena was added later. Both specimens are from the herbarium of Chaubard in the herbarium of Timothée Puel. However, I chose to lectotypify the name with one from the herbarium Boissier, clearly labelled with the name V. ‌chaubardii and exact locality and the label lectotypus from 1969.

Chaubard (1853) later also published a new French species, V. ‌friesii. Chaubard suggested that it is close to V. ‌agrestis, but leaves are ovate-oblong, base cordate, 11 crenations below, 13 or 9 teeth above, calyx lobes oblong-lanceolate, base not widened, nerves drawn to the middle, not almost to the top and the style shorter. There is one specimen found in P labelled with V. ‌friesii from the herbarium Puel, which resembles the figure in Chaubard (1853) but still belongs to today’s concept of V. ‌agrestis. It was collected from “Paris – Montrouge, Versailles” and has a reference to the figure in Chaubard (1853). However, it is not clear who collected it and whether it was collected before publication. Therefore, the figure accompanying the protologue was used as lectotype.

Léveillé (1911) described 25 new species based on collections by Faurie, including V. hawaiensis, a synonym of V. ‌arvensis. Leveillé probably did not expect a European weed in the collections, which further differs from typical V. ‌arvensis in being plants dominated by a long slender inflorescence and long (almost) glabrous internodes. Only one specimen is from his herbarium and, therefore, this is used as lectotype with the species epithet in a different handwriting than the rest of the label. It is not clear whether Leveillé saw the duplicates of his collection, especially since the other specimen in Paris was not labelled by him and more clearly resembles V. ‌arvensis.

Nakai (1915) described three species of V. subgen. Pseudolysimachium from the island Quelpart (= Jeju), V. ‌ovata ‌Nakai, V. ‌rotunda, and V. ‌villosula ‌Nakai, the first based on a collection by Taquet from 1912, the second based on a collection by Faurie (no. 786, Oct. 1906), the last one based on other collections by Faurie (no. 928, based on Nakai (1943) from Oct. 1906), by T. Mori (no. 123) and T. Ishidoya (no. 36, 14. Aug. 1912). Nakai (1943) later stated that the Faurie collection of V. ‌villosula is the type and stated that the types of all three are found in TI, which is considered to be an effective lectotypification. No further specimens of the type collections are mentioned.

Whereas V. ‌ovata and V. ‌rotunda are currently accepted species ( Iwatsuki et al. 1993) , V. ‌villosula was usually considered a synonym of V. ‌linariifolia (e.g., https://powo.science.kew.org), which is in line with the description with velutionous indumentum and small oblanceolate leaves. However, based on the specimen in Paris having broad leaves, synonymization with V. ‌linariifolia is dubious. Both, no. 786 and no. 928, have sessile, large leaves and long inflorescences (Table 1) and have been labelled in Paris by Bonati as V. ‌longifolia var. sessilifolia. The syntypes of V. ‌villosula, collected by T. Mori and T. Ishidoya, are filed under V. ‌kiusiana in TI, considered a subspecies of V. ‌ovata by Govaerts et al. (2021) . It appears that the specimen Faurie no. 928 in TI used by Nakai (1915) belongs to a different species than the specimen Faurie no. 928 in P. Also, the variation in V. ‌ovata / V. ‌kiusiana definitely deserves further study.

Finally, Borissova (1955a) published V. ‌sachalinensis, unaware of the slightly older name published by Yamazaki (1952). Whereas the taxonomic affinities of the name of Yamazaki (1952) are considered to be V. subgen. Pseudolysimachium, the name of Borissova (1955a) belongs to the genus Veronicastrum, either under the replacement name V. borissovae or as synonym of V. ‌japonicum or V. ‌sibiricum. The latter hypothesis is preferred here based on Ohashi (2015).

Veronica ‌macrostemon is a species endemic to the Altai and adjacent Sayan Mountains. The type collection is from alpine scree near the river Tschuja. Kosachev (2011) lectotypified the species with material from LE but failed to check for other original material outside LE. I, therefore, add to the lectotypification here. A number of specimens of Bunge exist that are not explicitly mentioned to be collected near river Tschuja NY[NY00130766, JE00003110, M0188520) and are, thus, not considered isolectotypes. The specimen in B that was mentioned by Stroh (1942) is likely destroyed. Interestingly, no original material by Bunge for the related V. ‌densiflora, also lectotypified by Kosachev (2011), was found in P.

Another species collected by Bunge in the summer of 1826 from the river Tschuja is Veronica ‌sessiliflora. The species status was doubted first by Elenevsky (1978) who suggested it to be a hybrid between V. ‌porphyriana and V. ‌pinnata, a hypothesis later confirmed by Kosachev et al. (2019) and Khan et al. (2024) . The species was as the previous one lectotypified by Kosachev (2011) but again without mentioning other herbarium specimens.

On his expedition to northern Iran, Bunge made also important collections of Veronica, for example that of V. ‌siaretensis. This species belongs to a group of species with close relationship to the cosmopolitan weeds V. ‌persica and V. ‌polita ‌ ( Fischer 1987 ) . The morphological diversity in the northeastern part of Iran is remarkable and species limits are difficult to draw. Therefore, identification of type material is important but unfortunately the herbarium LE could not be investigated in detail for these species. Therefore, I abstain from lectotypification so far. For V. ‌siaretensis, Lehmann (1908) mentioned specimens from “Siaret” in G and LE. No material was, however, found in G.

Another species of that species group with type material collected by Bunge is V. ‌bungei, collected close-by “in alpe Ssiachaneh” between “Siaret et Schahrud”. Surprisingly, no material of that species is found in P but only in G.

Bunge also received specimens from other collectors, for example, the widely distributed exsiccata series of Reichenbach. Therefore, type specimens of Reichenbach can also be found in the herbarium of Bunge in P. Veronica ‌maritima var. condensata is a variety of a V. ‌longifolia, which is completely glabrous, with four leaves per node, which have a cuneate base, are linear-lanceolate, with sharply serrate margin and very dense inflorescence. The name has been published by Reichenbach in his Flora Germanica ‌Excursoria (Reichenbach 1833 [1830-2]) and type material has been sent by Reichenbach in his exsiccatae series. Therefore, for many names there exist a large number of herbarium specimens, among them Bunge, but the original herbarium of Reichenbach has been destroyed. Since it is not clear whether Reichenbach saw these specimens before publication of the name, the exsiccate series can only serve as neotypes for names (e.g., Verloove 2017). Since the specimen in Paris is well preserved and is the only one known to me to be digitized, it is here chosen as neotype.

As mentioned above under Bunge, material of the Altai trip came to Paris via the Bunge herbarium bought by Cosson. However, there is no evidence that the specimen of V. ‌teucrium from the Altai belonged to the Bunge herbarium, but it seemed to have come from Ledebour to the general herbarium.

The name V. ‌nudicaulis is, based on description in the protologue, associated with V. ‌hispidula rather than V. ‌pusilla as in Borissova (1955b). Further, a second-step lectotypification is necessary in the future, because there are two specimens in LE (Kosachev, pers. comm.).

A third species published by Meyer has a more complicated taxonomic history. Veronica ‌tubiflora was published by Friedrich Ernst Ludwig Fischer & Meyer (1835) in the seed catalogue of the botanical garden St. Petersburg in 1835 based on plants from “pratis humidis Dahuriae”, however, without collector. None of the authors collected in that area. Turczaninow later (Turczaninow 1851) published the name based on his collections in Dahuria. The inspection of specimens of Fischer in the herbarium Cosson (P03520522), in which Fischer labelled the specimen with “ Veronica ‌tubiflora ‌Turcz. ” demonstrates that the original material came indeed from Turczaninow. As in previous names lectotypification requires extensive checking of the herbarium LE but specimens in P and other herbaria from Fischer collected by Turczaninow in Dahuria are certainly type material.

I have discussed the taxonomic problems of V. ‌crassifolia previously ( Albach et al. 2017) . The name was published in 1835 with most specimens in European herbaria dating from 1835 or without date, which excludes them from consideration as lectotype. The lectotype in BP is dated from 1833, so specimens from 1834 can be considered syntypes since they are not the same collection even if they are from the same locality.

With regard to V. ‌cariensis, ‌Boissier mentions three collection localities, 1. “Cadmus supra Gheyra”, 2. “in via inter Gheyra et Denisleh” and 3. “Tmolo ad Bozdagh” in southwestern Turkey. However, among the twelve original specimens located nine have the same label combining the two localities “Tmolus, Cadmus supra Gheyra”, which are 120 km apart from each other. Only the specimen in Boissier’s herbarium has clearly the locality “Tmolus ad Bozdagh” and the specimen in Bentham’s herbarium only has “Cadmus”. The latter specimen seems to have been sent to Bentham in anticipation of his revision of Scrophulariaceae ‌ ( Bentham 1846) before preparing the other specimens, which were sent to other colleagues based on combining collections from two collection sites. In the light of this, the specimen in G is considered the lectotype and all other isolectotypes. They demonstrate that V. ‌cariensis is a synonym of V. ‌cuneifolia subsp. cuneifolia ‌Don.

The type collection of V. ‌caespitosa is similarly complex. Boissier (1844) mentioned two collections, his own collection from Mt. Cadmus (Madran Mountain) and the one from Aucher-Éloy from Mt. Olympus in Bithynia (Uludağ), likely collected in 1833 (Baytop 2005). Both collections are present in several herbaria. Overall, I found 12 specimens of Boissier and eight of Aucher-Éloy. Since Boissier is more likely to have relied on his own collections, the lectotype is chosen from his collection and the Aucher-Éloy collection is considered to be the syntypes. Most of the specimens of Boissier’s collection have the same yellow label “Boissier 1842 – Cadmus supra Gheyra et Olympia” and are the ones distributed by Boissier to other collectors and herbaria. An exception is the one in the herbarium Bentham (K001070299), which states only “Cadmus” and was likely, similar to the specimen of V. ‌cariensis, sent to Bentham before shipping of the other specimens. The best specimen is found in his own herbarium with the label “Pic de Gheyra pais superior, Cadmus occid. Junio 1842” but not explicitly stating V. ‌caespitosa. Nevertheless, it is clear that this is the species described by Boissier.

Boissier and Balansa (Boissier 1856) were the first to recognize the distinctiveness of these plants but chose an illegitimate name, V. ‌divaricata, a fact later corrected by Stroh (1942) who chose to recognize Balansa in the name of this species. Veronica ‌balansae ‌(Stroh) belongs to V. sect. Acinifolia and to the large-flowered group but differs from V. ‌syriaca and others in capsules broader than 5 mm and with divergent lobes.

Veronica ‌ixodes is considered to differ from V. ‌hispidula by having longer styles and pedicels, the latter longer than the bracts, a white corolla rather than a blue one, and a slightly different capsule shape (Fischer 1978). The distribution ranges of both differ with V. ‌ixodes occurring further south in southern Anatolia and Cyprus, although ranges overlap, and mixed populations occur (Mouterde & Fischer 1984). Therefore, V. ‌ixodes is nowadays considered a subspecies of V. ‌hispidula.

Veronica ‌surculosa is an accepted, alpine species restricted to the Taurus Mountains (Fischer 1978). It is similar to V. ‌dichrus and V. ‌cuneifolia, which are not closely related according to DNA sequence analysis ( Doostmohammadi et al. 2022) . Therefore, typification and further analysis of this species is important.

Veronica ‌glaberrima belongs to the short-styled members of V. sect. Acinifolia ‌ ( Fischer 1972 ) and is nowadays considered conspecific with V. ‌pusilla ‌ ( Fischer 1978 ) . It is a high-alpine dwarf and completely glabrous form .

Veronica ‌cinerea is an accepted species from Inner Anatolia (Fischer 1978).

Veronica ‌microtheca is today considered a variety of V. ‌campylopoda differing in smaller capsules and seeds and slightly different shape of the capsule lobes. Further, the collection by Balansa represents the westernmost locality for the species, which is significant given the variation in ploidy ( Albach et al. 2008) and its range from Western Turkey to Eastern China. It is likely that different, cryptic species are combined under the name V. ‌campylopoda. The specimen in Geneva is chosen as lectotype since it contains a handwritten note by Balansa with the differentiating characters. There are an exceptional eight isolectotypes in P, four from the general herbarium, two from herbarium Drake, and two from Cosson (one via the herbarium Parceval-Grandmaison/Moquin-Tandon).

Veronica ‌anagallis-aquatica is an almost cosmopolitan species occurring in all kinds of aquatic habitats. It is one of the most phenotypically plastic species ( Ellmouni et al. 2017) and it has been difficult to delimit related species clearly from V. ‌anagallis-aquatica ‌ ( Hosseinnejad Azad et al. 2020 ) . Veronica ‌undulata has been consistently recognized in recent years based on hexaploidy (the only known hexaploids in the subsection Anagallides), straight pedicels (rather than ascending), sparsely glandular (rather than glabrous) indumentum (Hong & Fischer 1998) and small, white flowers. It is distributed widely in southern and eastern Asia but largely sympatric with V. ‌anagallis-aquatica. Veronica ‌anagallis-aquatica var. balansae was described by Bonati (1927) as having narrower, more toothed leaves, more elongated inflorescences, and hair-thin pedicels, twice as long as bracts and calyx. These characters can be easily recognized in the two specimens of Balansa in P, although not all pedicels are as long as indicated. Nevertheless, the patent pedicels, the smaller, narrower, and more toothed leaves, as well as the relative (to the rest of the plant) long inflorescence characterize the plants as belonging to V. ‌undulata. The two specimens belong to the Drake and the general herbarium, with the former not labeled with the name (P00587536), and the latter labeled with the new name and with “deter. Bonati”. Therefore, the latter is chosen as lectotype. Another specimen of this collection has been found in Kew with the same label but no note by Bonati.

Veronica ‌polifolia in its current sense (Fischer 1978, 1980) is a caespitose, suffruticose plant distributed in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains and north into Central Anatolia. Bentham (1846) named three collections of Aucher-Éloy, one of Kotschy, and one of Labillardière as syntypes of Veronica ‌polifolia. Aucher-Éloy no. 1958 is from “Olympo Bithynico”, no. 1964 from “monte Tauro” and no. 2594 from “Armenia”. Kotschy no. 290 is from “Mesopotamia” and Labillardière from “Syria”. Bentham further stated that he saw specimens in “herb. Hook.” (K) and “DC.” (G). Specimens from all collections except Aucher-Éloy no. 2594 can be found in either herbarium or both. I assume that Aucher-Éloy no. 2594, which also cannot be found in Paris, is actually a different species and has been stored under a different name unnoticed. Also, Aucher-Éloy no. 1958 (K001070226) is not V. ‌polifolia in the strict sense but according to M.A. Fischer (on the label) V. ‌multifida and V. ‌cinerea. Of the remaining three collections, only Aucher-Éloy no. 1964 are complete plants, showing fruits and flowers. Although the locality “mt. Tauro” is not precise, it is clear from his travel itinerary (Aucher-Éloy 1843) that he travelled extensively in the Eastern Taurus where V. ‌polifolia is relatively common. Of the two specimens, the specimen in G is in better condition and alone on the sheet.

Veronica ‌kurdica is a prostrate, suffruticose plant from the Alborz and Zagros Mountains in Iran, easily confused with alpine forms of V. orientalis. Bentham (1846) gave two collections as original material, J. Brandt from “montibus Kurdistan” and Aucher-Éloy no. 5089 “in alpibus Elamont”, which is nowadays Mt. Alamut near Teheran. The herbarium of Brandt is unknown with later material probably at LE (https://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_index.html), where Bentham is unlikely to have seen it. Therefore, Fischer (1981) chose the Aucher-Éloy collection as lectotype. However, Bentham is unlikely to have seen the specimen in Vienna. In the description, Bentham (1846) did not mention an herbarium specifically but “v.s.”, which likely refers to the same herbaria as in the preceding species (K, G) with the one in Kew being the more complete specimen. A phylogenetic analysis supported the monophyly of the species including V. ‌kurdica subsp. filicaulis ‌ ( Doostmohammadi et al. 2022) .

Veronica ‌anagallis-aquatica var. pubescens is described as being short pubescent from all sides. As type, Bentham stated the Iranian collection Aucher-Éloy no. 5100. The type material has the pyramidal capsule and long style characteristic of V. ‌michauxii. So, it is best considered to be a synonym of that taxon rather than V. ‌anagallis-aquatica ‌s.str. Since Bentham again seems to have seen only the material of Boissier in Geneva (“v.s.”) and no specimen is available in Kew, that material is chosen as lectotype, although it is not labelled with the name. Morphological and molecular analyses did not suggest a deeper significance for pubescence in the taxonomy of the species ( Hosseinnejad Azad et al. 2020 , 2021).

Veronica ‌thessalica is an alpine plant on limestone screes and rocky slopes of Mt. Olympos in Greece and adjacent mountains in the Republic of Northern Macedonia and Albania at elevations of 2100-2900 m ( Albach et al. 2009) . The phylogenetic relationships and morphological differences to related species have been analyzed by Albach et al. (2009) . Aucher-Éloy seems to have collected it on Mt. Olympos in 1836 (Baytop 2005) and considered it to be V. ‌capitata based on his label. Bentham (1846) stated to have seen the collection in Kew (“v. in herb. Hook.”). However, no relevant specimen of V. ‌thessalica of Aucher-Éloy, not least no. 1969, has been found in Kew. Therefore, the specimen in G is chosen as lectotype.

Veronica ‌macropoda is a rare annual species occurring from western Iran to Pakistan. Boissier (1844) described the species from a collection of Aucher-Éloy (no. 5094) from Isfahan. Several duplicates of this collection still exist but I assume that Boissier had only access to the one of his own collections, now in G. The species has not been investigated in more detail.

Veronica ‌microcarpa is an ascending to decumbent perennial herb occurring between Eastern Turkey and Western Iran. In phylogenetic analyses including samples from throughout its range, it is rather isolated despite morphologically rather similar to other species of the region, such as V. orientalis. It is noteworthy that there is a disrepancy between ploidy of plants measured flowcytometrically (2×, Eastern Turkey; Sonibare et al. (2014) ) and those from chromosome numbers (4×, Armenia, Meskova et al., in Rice et al. [2015] ). Boissier (1844) cited two collections of Aucher-Éloy (no. 5097 from “prope Bayazit”, Eastern Turkey, no. 5096 from “Aberbidjan”). Riek (1935) typified the name with the latter. There are two specimens of this collection in G, of which one was donated to the herbarium after Boissier’s death but before Riek published his typification. Therefore, a second-step lectotypification seems advantageous.

Veronica ‌aucheri is a procumbent alpine scree plant from the Alborz Mountain range in Iran. It was classified under V. sect. Alsinoides by Boissier (1844) based on indumentum and growth habit and unclear life history. Later, he (Boissier 1879) moved it to sect. Veronica based on its perenniality, although annual forms may still occur at lower elevations (Doostmohamadi pers. comm.). A position among perennial, alpine Iranian species was recently confirmed ( Doostmohammadi et al. 2022) . The type collection (Aucher-Éloy no. 5093) is quite widespread, but it is likely that Boissier has seen only his own collection in Geneva since he stated that he has seen only fragments. The Geneva specimen is indeed a collection presented with all branches separated, which is unusual for this species, which often has herbarium specimens with intermingled branches.

Veronica ‌paederotae is likewise a perennial herb, scrambling along alpine pebbles in the Alborz range of northern Iran. It is characterized by an unusually long corolla tube. Its position in V. subg. Pentasepalae, along with other perennial, alpine species from Southwest Asia was confirmed by Albach et al. (2004a) but it occupies a seemingly isolated position ( Doostmohammadi et al. 2022) . The type collection (Aucher-Éloy no. 5088) is again fairly widespread but again it is likely that Boissier only saw the Geneva material. It is surprising that this collection is missing in Paris, but it is likely that it is misfiled somewhere given that Aucher-Éloy did not initially label this collection as Veronica.

The final collection by Aucher-Éloy used as type, is no. 2531 from Armenia. Koch (1843) described Veronica ‌anisophylla from western Armenia, which was subsequently taken up by Bentham (1846) citing not just the collection by Koch but also by Aucher-Éloy (no. 2531). Later, Koch (1849) rejected the idea that these two collections are conspecific and described V. ‌benthamii based on the Aucher-Éloy collection. Karl Koch was based in Jena when he travelled the orient and wrote the description of the species, getting a permanent position as botanist at the Berlin Botanical Garden only four years later (Stafleu & Cowan 1979). Boissier (1879) synonymized V. ‌benthamii with V. ‌peduncularis. Römpp (1928) and Riek (1935) later confirmed that V. ‌anisophylla is conspecific with V. orientalis based on original material in Berlin. Since it was not found in the herbarium, it is likely that the collections of V. ‌anisophylla in Berlin were destroyed in World War II. This specimen was, however, illustrated by Riek (1935: abb. 19) and fits to the description by Koch (1843). Therefore, the photo is chosen as neotype. The plant differs from typical V. orientalis in being glabrous (usually eglandular pubescent, rarely subglabrous in V. orientalis), leaves of the vegetative apex not markedly different and a reddish flower (blue to lilac in V. orientalis). Nevertheless, confusion with another species is not possible and it is, therefore, regarded here as an extreme variety of that polymorphic and polyphyletic species ( Sonibare et al. 2014) .

With regards to V. ‌benthamii, surprisingly, the Aucher-Éloy collection was not found in P nor in B nor in any other herbarium except in Geneva. Therefore, the specimen in G has been chosen as lectotype and supports the synonymization with V. ‌peduncularis ‌M.Bieb. It remains unknown where Koch (1849) has the precise locality from since Bentham (1846) provided the number of the collection by Aucher-Éloy and that he has seen it in G but not the precise locality, which is also not present on the specimen label. Maybe, a collection by Aucher-Éloy was in B but was also destroyed in WWII.

Three specimens of the type collection of V. ‌hispidula are in Paris, one apparently directly sent to the general herbarium, the other through the herbier Cosson and the herbier Lenormand (Caen). The lectotype should be the one that Boissier studied most intensively. There are three specimens in G, one labelled as belonging to the personal herbarium of Huet du Pavillon (G00343629), one belonging to the herbarium Candolle (G00343630) and the third one from the herbier Boissier (G00751975). It is the latter one that is also the sheet with the small plants spread across the sheet as if best to study them and, therefore, chosen as lectotype.

Veronica ‌armena is characterized by highly pinnatisect leaves but differs from V. ‌multifida with similar leaves by the long, patent flower stalks and usually more branched habit. There is only one specimen in G, which is chosen as lectotype. However, 14 other specimens from the collection can be found across ten herbaria, including four from P.

The first species discussed is V. ‌teucrioides, a Greek subendemic and relative of V. ‌prostrata. Martinez-Ortega & Rico (2001a) discovered specimens fitting the protologue in the two herbaria in Vienna and further collections, here designated isolectotypes, can be found in FI and P. The latter does not bear a stamp of the Drake herbarium, so it seems to have been sent to P directly. However, so far, no specimen has been found in G.

Veronica ‌sartoriana was published in Nov./Dec. 1856 (Stafleu 1970) but all specimens outside G found so far were collected in June 1857 from the type locality and bear the publication information from 1856. It appears that the species was described from a small collection and Heldreich collected on June 5 th, 1857 under no. 748 / no. 2908 a larger sample to send it to colleagues and herbaria. The specimen G00768677 appears to have been collected in July 1857 from a different collection. Another specimen (G00768680) is interesting because it is only a single plant with the notes “Greecia […] (?) non notato Sartori”, while G00768681 is from June 8 th, but the year is difficult to read but likely 1857. In such a case, none of the other specimens in G is clearly type material and the collection from June 5 th, 1857, should be the neotype. This is also the specimen used as lectotype by Strid (2024).

Heldreich attributed the name V. ‌amoena clearly to Steven on his herbarium material and gave V. ‌glauca as synonym. However, V. ‌amoena ‌Stev. is a species from the Caspian region, which resembles the specimens here a bit, but belongs to a different subgenus. Thus, the name V. ‌amoena ‌Heldr. ex Nyman can be safely put into synonymy of V. ‌glauca.

V. ‌peloponnesiaca is a common taxon, nowadays considered a subspecies of V. ‌glauca. Of the five collections mentioned by Boissier and Orphanides (Boissier 1879), three were found in the herbarium G. The name was lectotypified by Strid (2024) but without barcodes, omitting the specimens in Paris and Uppsala and not stating that Geneva and Kew have two types.

Three specimens of V. galactites have been found, all with the same label of the Herbarium Hance, the collaborator of Sampson and author of the name. Two specimens are in P, one in K. All conform to the description, although the specimen in Kew seems damaged. In the absence of a thorough search of the herbaria BM (and CN, E, FI, MO, NY, PH) we abstain from designation of a lectotype. The specimens in K and P confirm the synonymization with V. ‌linariifolia, although one should bear in mind that the species was not monophyletic in the DNA-based analysis of Kosachev et al. (2016) and a revision of the species across its range is necessary, including the southernmost occurrences, from which V. galactites has been described.

Veronica ‌arvensis var. acinoides is an unbranched type of V. ‌arvensis with elongated internodes. The specimen in P is labelled with the name and perfectly fits the description. The specimen in LW, labelled V. ‌pseudo-acinos, later corrected to V. ‌arvensis var. pseudo-acinos, has two plants on the sheet (LW00210289) that are basally branched. Therefore, the specimen in P is the better match for the name.

As mentioned elsewhere in this article, the group of V. ‌anagallis-aquatica is polymorphic. So, it is not surprising that Schur (1866) added names to this group. The name V. ‌anagallis-aquatica var. glandulosa is significant since it precedes V. ‌anagallis-aquatica var. glandulosa ‌Farw. and is considered distinct by Schur from V. ‌anagalloides, which is usually distinguished from V. ‌anagallis-aquatica by glandular indumentum used here to separate the var. glandulosa from the nomitate variety. According to Junge (1912) this plant of Schur indeed belongs to V. ‌anagallis-aquatica, but it will require further inspection to confirm this. No original material was found in LW and the specimen in P are from another locality and date but direct reference to the publication. So, these plants may qualify as epitype material if no type material can be found.

Veronica ‌spicata var. subcanescens is a type of V. ‌spicata with dense, white indumentum of short hairs differing in the latter aspect from V. ‌spicata subsp. fischeri. No specimen in LW bears that name but one in P. This, however, does not originate from the type localities. Until there is a chance to find a better matching type in another herbarium, I will not typify the name.

Veronica ‌bachofenii is a species endemic to Transylvania. So, Schur must have encountered it more than most other botanists. His V. ‌bachofenii var. angustifolia differs by having leaves about 8 cm long and 2,5 cm wide with attenuate to subcordate base and had been found in “Arpasthale” in 1846. No specimen in LW assignable to that taxon was found. The specimen in P has the wrong year and no exact locality. So, it is a potential epitype.

In his study, Schur (1866) provided the name V. ‌austriaca var. glandulifera ‌Schur as a synonym of V. orientalis ‌Mill. Since it is given in synonymy, it is not valid. The specimens deserve further investigation since V. ‌austriaca does not have glandular hairs but V. orientalis. However, the latter does not occur in Transsylvania. The plant is tentatively based on locality and the deeply dentate leaves identified as V. ‌austriaca subsp. austriaca.

Ball (1875) published the name V. ‌cuneifolia subsp. atlantica based on one of his collections in Morocco. He related his new taxon to the Anatolian species V. ‌cuneifolia, disregarding for unknown reasons the sympatric V. ‌rosea published by Desfontaines (1798) much earlier from the Atlas Mountains. The description by Ball (1875) does not differ significantly from that of Desfontaines (1798). So, Ball’s taxon is considered a synonym of V. ‌rosea ‌ ( Rojas-Andrés et al. 2016) . Notably, Persoon (1805) published V. ‌atlantica, a superfluous name since Persoon cited V. ‌rosea in synonymy. Ball (1875) did not refer to Persoon’s name, so they are considered different names. The specimen in P, from the herbarium Cosson, is remarkable since it contains both type collections mentioned by Ball plus one collection by Ibrahim and has no indication that it was distributed by Kew. However, in his account of the flora or Morocco, Ball (1878) frequently mentioned communication with Cosson and exchange of specimens. No type specimens have been found in Kew and Edinburgh. A specimen in BM has a slightly different locality name and is not considered original material. The specimen from Tagherot (Fig. 4) is chosen as lectotype since it is better preserved than the one from Monte Djebel-Tezah.

The name Veronica ‌sibthorpioides was earlier lectotypified by Sánchez Agudo et al. (2012) with a specimen from CL without further explanation and no further isolectotypes. In the protologue two collections are cited, one from 1901 (“Montis Sierra de Cazorla, alt. ca. 1600 m. s. m. […] no. 129 sub nom. erron. Sibthorpiae europaea) and one from 1902 (Monte Sierra del Cuarto […] Exsicc. no. 1302) (Hervier 1905) with the former used as lectotype by Sánchez Agudo et al. (2012) . The specimen from Paris (P00208394) is labelled by J. A. Sánchez Agudo as lectotype but not mentioned in the typification, probably because it was still filed under Sibthorpia ‌europaea. Two more isolectotypes (JE00007187, H[ C.338576 ]) bear the identification Sibthorpia ‌europaea with the new determination written above it. Interestingly, LY0467457 is also collected in 1901 from Sierra de Cazorla but bears already the name Veronica ‌sibthorpioides with authors “Debeaux et Reverch.”. However, further original material exists, collected in May 1903 “Sierra de Castril, rochers calcaires ombragés, 1 700 mètres” with the name given as “ Veronica ‌sibthorpioides ‌Debeaux Reverch. ” GZU000101528, H[ C.338575 ], JE00007182-JE00007186, LY0467449, LY0467455, LY0736308, O-V2246039, P00208395, S10-25572, ZT10342 indicating the original idea of the two collectors to publish the name without Degen and Hervier. Collections of Reverchon from 1904 (“Barrancon de Valentina ”) then bear the designation “Debeaux et Degen” (L.2807862, LY0467458, LY0467454, P00208396).

Błocki used three different names (V. ‌sapiehae, V. ‌kerneria, V. ‌polonica) for plants collected in Oleksyntsi (Western Ukraine) and identified as hybrids between V. ‌incana and V. ‌spuria. Since all three names by Błocki are herbarium names, it is not clear, whether he distinguished those by morphological characters or whether he considered them to be synonymous. No obvious morphological difference exists. However, the fact that Błocki used terms “superspurio” and “subspurio” on the labels indicates that he saw more or less influence of V. ‌spuria. The name “ sapiehae ” seems to be used only in Schultz’ Herbarium Normale for plants collected by Błocki in july 1884 whereas V. ‌kerneri and V. ‌polonica is on handwritten labels by Błocki with the former used on specimens between 1882 to 1894. However, Holub & Pouzar (1967) only referred to V. ‌sapiehae ‌Błocki when introducing the name Pseudolysimachion x sapiehae Holub. The hybrids cannot be found at the locus classicus anymore. Therefore, the type material is important to verify the hybrid status.

The hybrid combination V. ‌incana x V. ‌spicata was called V. ‌canescens ‌Schrad. by Błocki and only later the epithet “blockianum” was introduced for this combination when it became more apparent that V. ‌canescens ‌Schrad. is true V. ‌incana ‌ ( Trávníček 1998). A combination under Veronica was so far lacking.

Veronica ‌grandis ‌Fisch. ex Spreng. is relevant here, since no specimen of V. ‌grandis of Fischer has been found in LE (Kosachev, pers. Comm.). Furthermore, the origin and history of V. ‌grandis is complex. The taxonomic history of the taxon was summarized by Knapp (1877a). The name was published by Sprengel (1821) with reference to Fischer and habitat in Siberia. Roemer and Schultes (1822) provide the same information with slightly different description. The herbarium of Sprengel is widely dispersed and partly destroyed (Stafleu & Cowan 1985). No material of V. ‌grandis from the herbarium Sprengel has been found. Bentham (1846) claimed to have seen original specimens by Fischer and specimens of Turczaninow in Kew and Geneva, although it is not clear which refers to specimens by Fischer and which by Turczaninow. Three specimens are found in Paris signed by Fischer, two from the general herbarium without date stated to come from “Dahuria”, and the third from herbarium Richard from “Daouria” from 1821 but in a different handwriting. All clearly belong to Veronica ‌daurica. Since there are also other specimens of Fischer known in other herbaria, which have been collected later (e.g., G00673115, BR000035777397), none of these specimens in Paris can be considered original material and it is also not clear whether Fischer signed these herbaria personally. Nevertheless, material in Paris would serve well as neotypes if no other material becomes available.

With specific regards to V. angustifolia, there are two other specimens in Paris (P00641570, P00641571) apart from those mentioned above, which may be type material, but this cannot be clarified in the current context. Bayly et al. (2000) did not provide a barcode number for their lectotype but specified the specific specimen by providing a photograph.

Veronica ‌kotschyana is a distinct species from southern Turkey, which belongs to V. subg. Stenocarpon. The Paris specimens from the general herbarium P (P03529284) and from herbarium Steudel in herbarium Drake (P04219254) are unique since they have labels, on which the plant is determined as V. ‌thymifolia ‌Sm., not V. ‌billardieri as stated in the protologue P(P03529284) contains two labels with different initial determinations).

Described by Bentham (1846), V. ‌syriaca var. pusilla is supposed to differ from V. ‌syriaca by smaller, narrower, and mostly entire leaves. This taxon is now considered to be a synonym of V. ‌debilis ‌ ( Fischer 1972 ) , but the group needs further revision with thorough studies of the indumentum not visible online. Therefore, no typification is done at the moment. Paris holds seven type specimens. Both, the general and the Cosson herbarium have two sheets on which both collections are combined.

As described by Hosseinnejad Azad et al. (2021) , V. ‌oxycarpa is likely just an ecotype of V. ‌anagallis-aquatica but it is possible that V. ‌anagallis-aquatica includes several taxa, of which one may include the type of V. ‌oxycarpa. Therefore, the type of V. ‌oxycarpa will likely have importance in the future. Elenevsky (1978) lectotypified the name with a specimen from G but did not mention that there are two specimens in that herbarium. Therefore, a second-step lectotypification is necessary. Since the specimen G00343599 belongs to the herbarium Moricand, I chose the specimen from the general herbarium as lectotype.

Veronica ‌montioides is another morphotype of the V. ‌anagallis-aquatica agg., collected in the vicinity of the locus classicus of V. ‌oxycarpa. It is the typical small morphotype characteristic of ephemeral aquatic habitats. Similar to V. ‌oxycarpa, there are two specimens in the herbarium G, and we chose the one from the general herbarium, rather than the one from the herbarium Moricand, as lectotype.

Čelakovský published yet another species of the V. ‌anagallis-aquatica agg. based on Kotschy’s collection of the Kuh-Daena mountains in southern Iran, V. ‌cordata. However, the name is not validly published because Čelakovský did not decide between the rank of species or subspecies for the name. Nevertheless, it is a frequently cited name with a peculiar combination of morphological characters of small, cordate leaves with long internodes, likely belonging to V. ‌anagalloides Guss. subsp. heureka ‌M.A.Fisch. Čelakovský has mostly worked in Prague. So, it is most likely that he studied specimens from PR or PRC, but he may have seen other specimens as well.

Veronica ‌pusilla ‌Kotschy is a small, annual species belonging to V. sect. Acinifolia. Since there is a description included on the label, the name is validly published and precedes V. ‌pusilla ‌ Benth. Bentham (1846) apparently learned about V. ‌pusilla ‌Kotschy after having decided on his own V. ‌pusilla and tried to give the name by Kotschy a nomen novum, V. ‌perpusilla ‌Boiss. ex Benth. The input of Boissier is not clear. Bentham (1846) cites two collections for V. ‌perpusilla, which are nowadays considered to belong to two species, Kotschy no. 717, the type of V. ‌pusilla ‌Kotschy, and no. 531, which is considered to be V. ‌hispidula ‌ ( Fischer 1981 ) . If the name V. ‌perpusilla ‌Boiss. ex Benth. is lectotypified by the collection Kotschy no. 531, this name would have priority over the established name V. ‌hispidula ‌Boiss. & A.Huet. Since it apparently was the intention of Boissier and Bentham that V. ‌perpusilla ‌Boiss. ex Benth. is identical with V. ‌pusilla ‌Kotschy, the name is lectotypified with Kotschy no. 717. Manfred Fischer labelled one specimen of Kotschy no. 717 in Vienna as holotype, also cited as such in Fischer (1981) but this is considered here as the intention to use it as lectotype.

Veronica ‌rubrifolia is another small, annual species of Veronica but from V. subg. Pocilla. The species was lectotypified by Fischer (1981) but additional isolectotypes are reported here.

Veronica ‌bombycina is an alpine species with dense white, interwoven indumentum from Lebanon. The specimen from the Geneva herbarium is chosen as lectotype.

Veronica ‌gorumsensis is a species mentioned by Boissier (1879) as synonym of V. ‌acinifolia and only published much later by Fischer (1972) but later considered a synonym of V. ‌balansae ‌ ( Fischer 1978 ) . Fischer (1972) called the type collection the lectotype but since Boissier did not validly publish the name and did not mention the collection of Kotschy explicitly, the lectotype is the holotype. However, as discussed by Fischer (1972) there are two specimens in W, and none is explicitly called the type. Therefore, lectotypification is necessary. I, here, follow the indication of Fischer on the type specimens and lectotypify the name with the specimens indicated by Fischer to be the holotype. Additionally, the type collection is heterogeneous consisting of typical V. ‌gorumsensis and V. ‌bozakmanii according to Fischer (1972) and a note by Manfred A. Fischer in PR (PR0377337). The two species differ in the capsule halves of V. ‌gorumsensis spreading at the sinus at an angle of 90° (not 60°), pedicels in fruit being 2-2.5× longer than bract (not 1.5-2×) and leaves being entire to subcrenulate (not always subcrenulate). Fischer (1972) mentioned only the two specimens in W for the collection of Kotschy no. 59 but there are at least eight specimens of the collection in herbaria worldwide. Of these, the specimens in G (G00768699), JE (JE00003997), P (P03529570, P03529581) and S (S10-22075) are V. ‌bozakmanii.

Before travelling to Abyssinia, Schimper collected on the Sinai Peninsula in 1835. There he collected, a small annual Veronica, which Boissier later used as syntype for the description of V. ‌campylopoda. The other syntypes were collected by Kotschy near Aleppo (Syria), from Aucher-Éloy near Mossul (northern Iraq) and later in northern Iran (Boissier 1844). Veronica ‌campylopoda is a widespread species found from Egypt to northwestern China. It is a very polymorphic species with three ploidy levels known ( Albach et al. 2008) . It is, therefore, probable that in the future the species may be split into multiple species. For that reason, it is essential to have a precise type locality, which excludes the second Aucher-Éloy specimen from becoming the lectotype of the species. Fischer (1981) lectotypified the species with the collection by Schimper but mentioned three herbaria. Therefore, a second-step lectotypification is necessary. Since Boissier surely saw the material from the Geneva herbarium and only one of the Schimper collections there was surely in possession of Boissier, this is here chosen as lectotype. Overall, 15 specimens of the type collections have been found in Paris with a complete set of four from the general herbarium and the herbarium Cosson.

Veronica ‌abyssinica is a polymorphic widespread species (sub)endemic to Africa occurring from Yemen to Malawi and vicariant in Cameroon and Sao Tome. The type specimen collected by Rüppell in Amhara (Ethiopia) was not located in his herbarium in FR (Fischer 2006). Therefore, the Schimper collection (Fig. 5) was designated as epitype (Lobin 1999). That collection is from Andera, a locality not mentioned by Gillett (1972) list of collecting localities. There is a town Andera west of Lake Tana but according to Gillett (1972) Schimper collected in August 1852 in the southern Semien Massif (and sent the material to Paris). The altitude given by Schimper on the type specimen suggests that he indeed collected the specimens in the mountains and that the town Andera is not the one near Lake Tana. Both specimens in Paris seem to come from the general collection.

Veronica ‌glandulosa is the second widespread species of the genus endemic to Africa. There has been some dispute around the species limits based mainly on different mountains having more or less different types, which are nevertheless currently considered to belong all to this species (except V. ‌gunae; Albach 2008b). Bentham (1846) provided the valid description of the species and explicitly mentioned Schimper no. 1149 as type, although Hochstetter in his herbarium labels called this collection V. ‌glandulosa var. cordata and Schimper no. 568 only Veronica ‌glandulosa. The name as given by Hochstetter, as most names by him, is invalid lacking a description (Friis 1993). Bentham mentioned specimens in the herbaria of Hooker (now K) and DC. (now G). Fischer (2006) lectotypified the name with material from K. Since there are several specimens in Kew a second-step lectotypification is necessary. No specimen bears a signature by Bentham but the one from his own herbarium seems a safe choice.

Only a few days earlier near the same place, Schimper collected the type specimen of V. ‌violifolia, a little-known annual species, which may be related to Veronica subsect. Agrestes based on its prostrate habit, leaf-like, ovate bracts with crenate margin. This was again distributed by Hochstetter with the new name but without description. Bentham (1846) mentions again specimens in herbaria Hooker (K) and DC. (G). The specimen in the herbarium of Bentham is crumbled, one other specimen is from herbarium J. Gay and may not have been seen by Bentham. The specimen in the herbarium Hooker is not well spread and leaves difficult to see. Therefore, the specimen in G is chosen as lectotype. There is also a specimen in KW (herbarium Turczaninow) with the label of Schimper, but this shows only an inflorescence belonging to a different species.

Two years later, Schimper again collected in the area and collected the type specimen of V. ‌wogerensis, considered to be a synonym of V. ‌javanica ‌ ( Römpp 1928), a pantropical weedy species. He sent it like all of his specimens to Hochstetter (Wörz 2017) who again realized that it is a new species and gave it the new name when sending the specimens out to subscribers. Richard is most likely to have seen specimens in Paris and the specimen in the general herbarium matches the protologue perfectly. It is, therefore, likely the basis for the description and chosen as lectotype.

Engler described a smaller form of the widespread Northern Hemisphere species V. ‌beccabunga from the Simen Mountains, collected by Schimper at the same time as the species above. The label calls it a variety, but we follow here the ranking by Engler (1892). Engler likely saw material in Berlin (B) but since there are no Veronica specimens of Schimper in Berlin today, they likely got burned in the second World War. Engler (1892) did not provide a description of the taxon. However, Engler explicitly referred to the description of V. ‌beccabunga by Richard (1851: 125). Therefore, I consider the taxon validly published. In the description by Richard, the obovate-lanceolate leaves are mentioned, which distinguishes this taxon from typical V. ‌beccabunga, and which can be studied well in the Paris specimens. None of the two specimens bear designation to a special herbarium and one even does not bear the typical Schimper labels but a hand-written label and differing slightly in the description of the locality by Richard (1851). Therefore, the specimen with the original printed label of the Schimper collection is considered the lectotype and the other specimens just original collections.

Garnock-Jones (1993) lectotypified the name Veronica ‌lavaudiana ‌Raoul with a specimen from P but did not realize that there are two specimens of Raoul in P. However, based on the label on the sheet it is clear, which specimen Garnock-Jones chose as lectotype. The lectotypification is, therefore, only amended.

The lectotype of V. ‌fonkii, a synonym of V. ‌salicifolia ‌G.Forst., should be among the collections in SGO and among those the lectotype chosen is the one with the date (2.[18]57), collection number (no. 149) and the extensive description of the locality matching the protologue.

Alexandre Boreau wrote an influential flora of central France (Boreau 1840, 1849, 1857), in which he described V. ‌anagallis-aquatica f. anagalliformis with glandular inflorescence but not fitting to V. ‌anagalloides. The name was often referred to in subsequent studies as form or variety of V. ‌anagallis-aquatica.

Unfortunately, Boreau did not further describe the origin of the form. The specimens in P are distinguished from V. ‌anagallis-aquatica by capsule shape and style length and have flower stalks curved upwards with small bracts, excluding V. ‌catenata. The two specimens in Paris came through the Drake collection, a connection not mentioned by Bureau (1904), and to the general herbarium by M. Loret. The lectotype is chosen from the herbarium of Boreau in ANG (Fig. 6) and is the earliest collection by Boreau found. It also bears the annotation “ Veronica ‌anagalloides ?” expressing the first doubt of Boreau regarding the identity of the specimens.

Veronica ‌onoei is a relative of V. ‌officinalis, whereas V. ‌yedoensis was determined by Nakai in 1924 to be a poor specimen of V. ‌peregrina on the herbarium specimen. However, the specimen is not visible online since the specimen is kept in an envelope. The species is mentioned for the first time by Franchet & Savatier (1875) with the type specimen but without description. The validating description was provided later (Franchet & Savatier 1878).

When publishing the name V. ‌ornata, Monjuschko (1924) mentioned five specimens examined, one specimen by Savatier (“ no. 902. Hakone, in rupibus fruticetis. 1866-1871. A. Franchet (sub nom. V. ‌incana L.”), two by Maximowicz and two from Siebold. It is not clear whether his comment “ex Mus. Bot. Acad. Scient. Petrop.” refers just to the Siebold specimens or all five. The Paris specimens of Savatier no. 902 are unlikely to have been inspected since they are labeled “in jugo Hakone” (P03429514) and “in tractu Hakone” (P03529498 from Drake herbarium). It appears that rather Franchet sent an additional specimen to St. Petersburg, which was seen by Elenevsky (1978) and chosen as lectotype.

Veronica ‌fargesii was described by Franchet (1900). Four collections of this species collected by Farges are in P. Of these, only one (P03529342; Fig. 7), bears a label with exact locality data matching the protologue and signed by Farges. It is, therefore, chosen as lectotype. The number 1169 also appears on another plate (P03529340), and one specimen (P03529339) bears the same label as P03529340 but not the number. One specimen (P03529341) belongs to the Bonati herbarium, has a newer label, and only has material in an envelope, possibly split by Bonati from the other specimens. Duplicates of the Bonati material are in GH, K, S, and US.

Veronica ‌sutchuenensis was published together with the former by Franchet (Franchet 1900). There is only one specimen of this species in P bearing all information in the protologue.

Veronica ‌laxissima was later published by Hong (1996) based on material of Farges. Hong (1996) based his description on specimens from US and PE, but duplicates of the type collection can be found in P, although they lack the specific collection number of Farges. The specimen in US originates from the Drake herbarium and was sent to US from P.

Franchet (1900) described V. ‌piroliformis, together with other new species based on the collections by Farges, based on three collections of Delavay from Yunnan, Delavay no. 210, no. 133, and one unnumbered from “Li-kiang”. In Paris, two collections clearly belong to Delavay no. 210 from Hee-chan-men (P00208377, P03529800). The collection Delavay no. 133 from koua-la-po can be associated with three specimens (P03529796, P03529799, P03802974). One specimen (P03529795) comes from Yunnan. The remaining specimens were collected later and bear no collection number. One specimen (P03429797) was collected from Hee-chan-men, the locality of Delavay no. 210, on July 14 th, 1887, whereas the original no. 210 was collected on August 16 th, 1883. Two specimens (P03529587, P03802974) were collected on August 5 th, 1885, from koua-la-po, the same locality as Delavay no. 133, collected on August 26 th, 1884. While it can be assumed that Franchet saw all specimens, it is not entirely clear whether he used the latter collections before making up his mind about the new species. I also do not consider P03529795, because it bears the no. 133 but no further locality information. It seems to be a later split-off from another specimen. This leaves us with six specimens, at least one from each locality mentioned by Franchet (1900) in the protologue. Since the collection from Li-kiang (P03802975) does not bear the typical fruits and collection no. 210 has unusually strongly dentate and rounded leaves, I choose no. 133 as lectotype. Among the three specimens, P03529799 is the one with typical fruits.

The only collection of Veronica, which made it to type material, is that of V. ‌mexicana, a distinctive species from the Chihuahua region. It was shown to be related to Siberian and Himalayan species of V. subg. Stenocarpon ‌ ( Albach 2006). The species was published by Watson (1888) alongside several other new species based on Mexican plants collected by Pringle but without stating a specific herbarium. Watson was curator at the Gray Herbarium, of which Pringle was collector. Therefore, the specimen in GH is chosen as lectotype and all other specimens of that collection as isolectotypes, including the ones from the Drake and Cosson herbaria in Paris.

In 1893, Velenovsky (1894) described V. ‌thracica based on one of the collections by Stříbrný, a taxon later considered a subspecies or variety of V. ‌teucrium or a synonym of V. ‌crinita ‌ ( Rojas-Andrés & Martinez-Ortega 2016) but most recently recognized at the species level again ( Padilla-García et al. 2018) .

Veronica ‌velenovskyi var. subintegrifolia, the entire-leaved and longer stemmed variety of V. velenovskyi, may be a type growing in submerged water with the serrate type a terrestrial form. Veronica ‌velenovskyi is a synonym of V. ‌scardica, which is a serpentine specialist related to V. anagallis-aquatica. The species is known from scattered localities between Austria and Iran and south to Egypt, although the common origin is unclear and parallel adaptation to serpentine soil is possible, especially of the Egyptian plants ( Ellmouni et al. 2017) . Borbás collected his type material near Budapest, whereas the type of V. ‌velenovskyi is from the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast and that of V. ‌scardica from Albania. Strangely, type material of Borbás name was not found in BP. The Herbarium Normale was distributed from Vienna by Dörfler in 1894 and since specimens from other collectors were not part of Dörfler’s personal herbarium ( Vogt et al. 2018) , the best specimens are likely to be found in Vienna.

On the fifth visit of Albania by Antonio Baldacci, he collected on the border to nowadays Northern Macedonia. There, he found plants he identified as V. ‌saturejoides and which was later chosen as type of V. ‌saturejoides subsp. munellensis by Fischer (1970), a taxon endemic to Albania and known only from two localities ( Albach et al. 2009) . Fischer (1970) chose the specimen in WU as holotype and another in W as isotype but there are further duplicates in several other herbaria since Baldacci spread his collections far around. Two specimens are in Paris, one in the general collection, received on February 25 th, 1898, probably directly by Baldacci, the other through the Drake herbarium, which is known to contain many of Baldacci’s specimens (Bureau 1904).

Veronica ‌hederifolia and V. ‌sublobata are two closely related species, distinguished by chromosome number and a few morphological characters (Fischer 1967). Unfortunately, neither the chromosome number is available for Le Grand’s specimen nor are flowers present. The protologue and other morphological characters provide a mix of affinities for the plants, such as minute flowers and the relatively wide central lobe of the bracts speaking for V. ‌sublobata, and the relatively short pedicel compared to the sepal speaking for V. ‌hederifolia. The specific affinity of these plants requires further and more detailed analyses of the specimens. The specimen from the Drake herbarium is of slightly better condition and is more certain to have been at hand for Le Grand (see above), although both specimens are labelled with “n.” or “nobis” after the taxon name.

Veronica ‌undulata is a hexaploid relative of the cosmopolitan V. ‌anagallis-aquatica ‌ ( Albach et al. 2008) . Veronica ‌undulata occurs from Pakistan to Japan between 20°N and 48°N. Wallich differentiated it from related species by its lanceolate leaves with wavy margins and glandular inflorescence, although the smaller (shorter than calyx), white flowers are equally characteristic. Wallich (Roxburgh & Wallich 1820) mentioned in the protologue that the plant was collected by Mr. W. Jack in the Turraye (Nepal). William Jack is known to have travelled to Bengal before meeting Wallich and subsequently collected in Sumatra and other places in southeast Asia, but it is unclear whether Jack travelled in Nepal (Candolle & Radcliffe-Smith 1981; Noltie & Watson 2021). Also, neither Wallich (1828) nor Bentham (1835) mentioned a specimen by Jack but only those listed by Wallich (1828) and one by Royle from Kanaour despite Bentham having intensively worked on the collection of Veronica from Wallich (Candolle & Radcliffe-Smith 1981). Therefore, the attribution of a specimen to Jack from Nepal is likely an error or has been lost and no specimen conforming to the information in the protologue is likely to be found. Therefore, a neotype needs to be found with the help of Wallich’s information.