(2785) Centaurea crocata Franco, Nova Fl. Portugal 2: 572. 1984 [Angiosp.: Comp.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: [Portugal, Algarve], Monchique, Moinho do Peso, Jul 1924, Palhinha (LISU No. P-39238). (H) Centaurea crocata Gand., Obs. Centaurea: 13. Oct 1873, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [France], St. Bonnet-sur-Montmelas (Rhône), 26 Jul 1869, Gandoger 3 (LY barcode LY0004276). Centaurea crocata Franco (Nova Fl. Portugal 2: 572. 1984) was published by João do Amaral Franco to accommodate a rare species from southern Portugal often referred to C. prolongoi Boiss. A comprehensive study of the two species by Garcia-Jacas & Susanna (in Nordic J. Bot. 14: 31–38. 1994) confirmed that it was a separate entity both by morphological and genetic evidence. Centaurea crocata Franco is accepted in all modern floras and online compilations: Devesa in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iber. 21: 552–555. 2015; Carapeto & al., Centaurea crocata Franco – Map. Distrib. 2019 (http://www.flora-on.pt/#wCentaurea+crocata, accessed 15 Jun 2020); Euro+Med PlantBase (http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Centaurea&PTRefFk=7000000, accessed 15 Jun 2020). Centaurea crocata Gand. (Obs. Centaurea: 13. 1873) was published by Gandoger in a booklet with the title Observations sur les Centaurea decipiens (Thuill.), transalpina (Schleich.) et tubulosa (Chabert). The booklet included the description of 22 new species by Gandoger, namely Centaurea adusta, C. crocata, C. dealbescens, C. eriocaulon, C. fallacina, C. flexilis, C. foliosa [nom. illeg., non Boiss. & Kotschy], C. gracilescens, C. grandifolia, C. incurvata, C. intermixta, C. lucescens, C. lyratifolia, C. myrioclada, C. pseudomicroptilon, C. pulmonariifolia, C. sabauda, C. seminutans, C. subcana, C. subconica, C. torrida and C. valida. None of these species has ever been accepted, and they are not reflected, even as synonyms, in any major flora (e.g., Dostál in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 4: 254–301. 1976). It is noteworthy that even the floras of France (Coste, Fl. Descr. France 2. 1906; Guinochet & Vilmorin, Fl. France 4. 1982) do not mention any of them, even though all the species were described from the region around Lyon (France). Either they do not appear in major databases such as Euro+Med (see above) or Tela Botanica (https://www.tela-botanica.org/?s=Centaurea%20&in=flore, accessed 8 Oct 2019), or else they are marked as “unresolved” as in The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/search?q=Centaurea, accessed 8 Oct 2019). A close examination of the specimen of C. crocata preserved in Lyon and designated as lectotype (LY0004276, https://herbier2014.univ-lyon1.fr/fiche/6649, accessed 8 Oct 2019) shows that the purported species falls into the variability of the widespread C. nigra L. The dismissal of the Centaurea species described in Gandoger's booklet is as unanimous as unsurprising. The appearance of so many new Centaurea species in a small geographic area is highly suspicious and nobody has taken the treatment seriously for good reasons. We can recall here the extremely negative opinion on Gandoger published by Rothmaler (in Taxon 11: 156–160. 1962). It is not any wonder that Gandoger's opus magnum, his 27-volume Flora Europae terrarumque adjacentium, appears in Appendix I (Suppressed Works) of the Shenzhen Code (Wiersema & al. at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/ 2018+ [accessed 17 Mar 2020]) as a work in which no species name is validly published. To propose a different name (Centaurea francoi Figueiredo & Gideon F. Sm. in Phytotaxa 344(1): 99. 2018) because of the prior existence of a taxonomically hollow and never accepted species does not contribute to nomenclatural stability. As C. crocata Franco, the taxon has a long record of citations and intense research on monographs along almost 30 years: it was studied by Garcia-Jacas (Estudi Taxon. Biosist. Espècies Centaurea sect. Acrocentron. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Barcelona. 1992); by Garcia-Jacas & Susanna (l.c.), who suggested that it was a fine example of hybridogenic speciation; by Fernández Casas (in Fontqueria 48: 221. 1998) when describing a closely related species; by Font & al. (in Pl. Syst. Evol. 234: 15–26. 2002), who included C. crocata in a molecular phylogeny of Centaurea sect. Acrocentron; by Font & al. in an extended molecular phylogeny of the group (in Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 103: 985–997. 2009); by Garcia-Jacas & al. (in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 52: 377–394), who confirmed on molecular basis the hypothesis of the hybridogenic origin; by Moreyra (Origin Polyploid Complexes C. tentudaica and C. crocata. M.Sc. Diss., Univ. Barcelona. 2019); and it is listed under this name in the two modern floras of the Iberian Peninsula: Franco (l.c.) and Devesa (l.c.). Conservation efforts are beginning in Portugal under this name (https://listavermelha-flora.pt/especies/, accessed 15 Jun 2020). In this context, it seems to us inappropriate to change the name of a soundly described, widely accepted and thoroughly studied Centaurea crocata Franco to C. francoi Figueiredo & Gideon F. Sm. (l.c.), and so we propose to conserve the name Centaurea crocata Franco against its earlier homonym, C. crocata Gand. NGJ, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1893-5122 AS, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4717-9063 Authors thank Dr. Mélanie Thiebaut and Dr. Yves Theillère (Herbier LY – CERESE, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1) for their help in locating the original material collected by Gandoger.