Editing Digitalis (section)

===Systematics===
The first full [[monograph]] regarding this genus was written by [[John Lindley|Lindley]] in 1821. He included two sections, a section ''[[Isoplexis]]'' including two species, and the main section ''Digitalis'' with three subsections, including 2Y species, a number of which are now seen as [[Synonym (taxonomy)|synonyms]] or hybrids.<ref name=Lindley1821/>

In the last full monograph of the genus in 1965, Werner classified the 19 recognised species in five [[Section (taxonomy)|sections]] (four species from [[Macaronesia]] were separated in the genus ''Isoplexis'' at the time):<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Werner |first1=Klaus |date=1965 |title=Taxonomie und Phylogenie der Gattungen ''Isoplexis'' (Lindl.) Benth. und ''Digitalis'' L. |journal=Feddes Repertorium |volume=70 |issue=1–3 |pages=109–135 |doi=10.1002/fedr.19650700106 |language=de}}</ref><ref name=Kreis2017>{{cite journal |last1=Kreis |first1=Wolfgang |date=2017 |title=The Foxgloves (''Digitalis'') Revisited |journal=Planta Medica |volume=83 |issue=12–13 |pages=962–976 |doi=10.1055/s-0043-111240|pmid=28561136 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2017PlMed..83..962K }}</ref><ref name=Wichtl2001>{{cite journal |last1=Wichtl |first1=Max |date=2001 |title=''Digitalis'' L. -Fingerhut (Scrophulariaceae) - eine wichtige Arzneipflanzengattung |url=https://archive.org/details/stapfia-75-089-100 |journal=Stapfia |volume=75 |issue=164 |pages=89–100 |language=de |access-date=25 November 2020}}</ref>
*In the section ''Digitalis'', along with the [[type species]] [[Digitalis purpurea|''D. purpurea'']], four other species (as recognised as the time) were placed: [[Digitalis thapsi|''D. thapsi'']], [[Digitalis purpurea#Subspecies and hybrids|''D. dubia'']], [[Digitalis mariana|''D. heywoodii'']] and [[Digitalis mariana|''D. mariana'']].
*The [[monotypic]] section ''Frutescentes'' contained only [[Digitalis obscura|''D. obscura'']].
*The section ''Grandiflorae'', which was also called section ''Macranthae'' by [[Vernon Hilton Heywood]]. It included, along with the [[type species]] ''D. grandiflora'', also [[Digitalis atlantica|''D. atlantica'']], [[Digitalis ciliata|''D. ciliata'']] and [[Digitalis davisiana|''D. davisiana'']].
*''Globiflorae'' included five species: [[Digitalis laevigata|''D. laevigata'']], [[Digitalis nervosa|''D. nervosa'']], [[Digitalis ferruginea|''D. ferruginea'']], [[Digitalis cariensis|''D. cariensis'']] and [[Digitalis lanata|''D. lanata'']].
*''Tubiflorae'' included four species: ''D. subalpina'', [[Digitalis lutea|''D. lutea'']], [[Digitalis viridiflora|''D. viridiflora'']] and [[Digitalis parviflora|''D. parviflora'']].

In their 2000 book about ''Digitalis'', Luckner and Wichtl continued to uphold Werner's classification of the 19 species,<ref name=Wichtl2001/><ref name=Kreis2017/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Luckner |first1=M. |last2=Wichtl |first2=Max |date=2000 |title=''Digitalis'': Geschichte, Biologie, Chemie, Physiologie, Molekularbiologie, medizinische Anwendung. Handbuch für Ärzte, Apotheker und andere Naturwissenschaftler |location=Stuttgart |publisher=Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft |language=de |isbn=3-8047-1705-5}}</ref> but molecular studies into the [[phylogeny]] of the genus published in 2004 found that although four of Werner's sections were supported by the genetics, the section ''Tubiflorae'' was [[polyphyletic]], and that the species ''D. lutea'' and ''D. viridiflora'' should be placed in the section ''Grandiflorae''.<ref name=Bräuchler2004>{{cite journal |last1=Bräuchler |first1=C. |last2=Meimberg |first2=H. |last3=Heubl |first3=G. |date=2004 |title=Molecular phylogeny of the genera ''Digitalis'' L. and ''Isoplexis'' (Lindley) Loudon (Veronicaceae) based on ITS- and trnL-F sequences |journal=Plant Systematics and Evolution |volume=248 |issue=1–4 |pages=111–128 |doi=10.1007/s00606-004-0145-z|bibcode=2004PSyEv.248..111B |s2cid=25480255 }}</ref> This study, as well as a number of other studies published around that time, reunited the genus ''Isoplexis'' with ''Digitalis'', increasing the number of species to 23.<ref name=Kreis2017/><ref name=Bräuchler2004/>

[[Peter Hadland Davis]], an expert on the flora of [[Turkey]], had used a different [[Circumscription (taxonomy)|circumscription]] than Werner in his works, and recognised eight species in the country. A 2016 molecular phylogenetic study into the relationships of the Turkish species in the section ''Globiflorae'' aimed to reconcile this discrepancy, finding that the classification as proposed by Davis was largely correct: ''Globiflorae'' contained as distinct species ''D. cariensis'', ''D. ferruginea'', ''D. lamarckii'', ''D. lanata'' and ''D. nervosa'', and ''D. trojana'' was subsumed at the infraspecific rank as ''D. lanata'' subsp. ''trojana''. This study listed 23 species: ''D. transiens'', ''D. cedretorum'', ''D. ikarica'' and ''D. fuscescens'' were not mentioned. ''D. parviflora'' and ''D. subalpina'' were not tested in this study,<ref name=Eker2016/> but the 2004 study found these two species situated within the section ''Globiflorae''.<ref name=Bräuchler2004/>