Editing Clinopodium douglasii (section)

=== 19th and 20th centuries ===
George Bentham examined von Chamisso's 1816 collections from San Francisco and made the first publication of the species name in 1831, initially recognizing the samples as belonging to two related but different species, ''Thymus Chamissonis'' (named for von Chamisso) and ''Thymus Douglasii'' (named in honor of [[David Douglas (botanist)|David Douglas]]).<ref name="Bentham-1831"/><ref group=Note name=Note01/> In 1834, Bentham transferred the species from ''[[Thymus]]'' to ''[[Micromeria]]'' and merged the two species under the name ''Micromeria Douglassii''.<ref name="Bentham-1834"/> Bentham had initially separated the two based on small differences in leaf shape and position, but after examining more specimens, decided that what he had called ''Thymus Chamissonis'' was simply an [[ecotypic]] variation caused by growing in a more open environment than the specimen of ''Thymus Douglasii'' that he'd first examined.<ref name="Bentham-1831"/><ref name="Bentham-1834"/> In 1842, [[Friedrich Ernst Ludwig von Fischer]] and [[Carl Anton von Meyer]] described a collection of yerba buena made at [[Fort Ross]] as a separate species, ''Micromeria barbata'', based on the hairy inner surface of the [[Corolla (botany)|corolla]] tube.<ref name="meyer-1842">{{Cite journal| volume = 8| pages = 67| last1 = Fischer| first1 = Friedrich Ernst Ludwig von| last2 = Meyer| first2 = Carl Anton von| title = 1933. Micromeria barbata| journal = Index Seminum, Quae Hortus Botanicus Imperialis Petropolitanus Pro Mutua Commutatione Offert. Accedunt Animadversiones Botanicae Nonnullae| date = 1842| url = https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/165156#page/415/mode/1up}}</ref> This differentiation has not been generally accepted by later authors, who regard it as a synonym of ''Micromeria'' or ''Clinopodium douglasii''.<ref name="bentham-1848"/><ref name="gray-fna-1878">{{cite book | last=Gray | first=Asa | date= 1878 | title=Synoptical Flora of North America | location = New York| publisher=American Book Company | volume=2 | page=359 | url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11284619}}</ref><ref name="bauchler-2008">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.3372/wi.38.38202| volume = 38| issue = 2| pages = 363–410 (p. 368)| last1 = Bräuchler| first1 = Christian| last2 = Ryding| first2 = Olof| last3 = Heubl| first3 = Günther| title = The genus Micromeria (Lamiaceae), a synoptical update| journal = Willdenowia| date = 2008| url = https://bioone.org/journals/willdenowia/volume-38/issue-2/wi.38.38202/The-genus-Micromeria-Lamiaceae-a-synoptical-update/10.3372/wi.38.38202.pdf}}</ref>

When Bentham transferred this species to ''Micromeria'', he placed it in a newly described [[section (biology)|section]], ''Micromeria'' sect. ''Hesperothymus'', alongside other species such as ''[[Clinopodium brownei|Micromeria Brownei]]'', based largely on the arrangement of flowers (mostly solitary pedicellate flowers found at the leaf axils), as well as the presence of more or less dentate leaf margins and the often prostrate, spreading habit of the plant overall.<ref name="Bentham-1834"/><ref name="bentham-1848"/> The subgeneric classification of this species in sect. ''Hesperothymus'' was adhered to by botanical authors through the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the generic classification of sect. ''Hesperothymus'' varied considerably between authors, leading to this species being placed in a number of genera over its history.<ref name="doroszenko"/> In the 1890s, [[Otto Kuntze]]<ref name="kuntze-1891">{{Cite book| publisher = Arthur Felix| volume = 2| page = 513-515| last = Kuntze| first = Otto| title = Revisio generum plantarum vascularium omnium atque cellularium multarum secundum leges nomenclaturae internationales cum enumeratione plantarum exoticarum in itinere mundi collectarum| location = Leipzig| date = 1891| url = https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/7554#page/139/mode/1up}}</ref> and [[John Isaac Briquet]]<ref name="briquet-1896">{{Cite book| publisher = W. Engelmann| volume = 4(3a)| pages = 273–375 (p. 296-297, 300)| editor-last1 = Engler| editor-first1 = Adolf| editor-first2 = Karl| editor-last2 = Prantl| last = Briquet| first = John Isaac| title = Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien nebst ihren Gattungen und wichtigeren Arten, insbesondere den Nutzpflanzen, unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher hervorragender Fachgelehrten begründet| chapter = Labiatae| location = Leipzig| date = 1896| chapter-url = https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100244#page/330/mode/1up}}</ref> argued that many of Bentham's mint family genera were poorly defined and pursued a [[Lumpers and splitters#Biology|lumping]] classification strategy, with Kuntze placing all sections of ''Micromeria'' within ''Clinopodium'' and Briquet placing them in ''[[Satureja]]''. While Kuntze argued that the name ''Clinopodium'' had [[Priority (biology)|priority]] due to its use by pre-Linnean authors, Briquet's classification system proved more popular with later taxonomists.<ref name="doroszenko"/> 

For the next century following Briquet's publication, the names ''Micromeria douglasii'',<ref name="frye-rigg-1914">{{Cite book| publisher = American Book Company| last1 = Frye| first1 = Theodore Christian| last2 = Rigg| first2 = George Burton| title = Elementary Flora of the Northwest| location = New York| date = 1914| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=0b0YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA194| page = 194}}</ref><ref name = "gilkey-1929">{{Cite book| publisher = Oregon State College| last = Gilkey| first = Helen M.| title = A Spring Flora of Northwestern Oregon| location = Corvallis, OR| date = 1929}}</ref><ref name = "morales-1993">{{Cite journal| volume = 18| pages = 157–168| last = Valverde| first = Ramón Morales| title = Sinopsis y distribución del género Micromeria Bentham.| journal = Botanica Complutensis| date = 1993| url = https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/BOCM/article/view/BOCM9393110157A}}</ref> ''Micromeria chamissonis'',<ref name="jepson-1925"/><ref name = "piper-beattie-1915">{{Cite book| publisher = Press of the New Era Printing Company| last1 = Piper| first1 = Charles V| last2 = Beattie| first2 = R. Kent| title = Flora of the Northwest Coast| location = Lancaster, PA| date = 1915}}</ref><ref name="gifford-1952"/> and ''Satureja douglasii''<ref name = "munz-1935">{{Cite book| publisher = Claremont Colleges, Scripps Publishing Fund| last = Munz| first = Philip A.| title = A Manual of Southern California Botany| date = 1935}}</ref><ref name="jepson-1939">{{Cite book| publisher = Cunningham, Curtis & Welch| volume = 3| last = Jepson| first = Willis Linn| title = A Flora of California| location = San Francisco| date = 1939| page = (p. 422)| doi = 10.5962/bhl.title.7604| url = https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7368741#page/424/mode/1up}}</ref><ref name = "hitchcock-etal-1959">{{Cite book| publisher = University of Washington Press| isbn = 9780295739861| volume = 4 (Ericaceae through Campanulaceae)| last1 = Hitchcock| first1 = C. Leo| last2 = Cronquist| first2 = Arthur| last3 = Ownbey| first3 = Marion| last4 = Thompson| first4 = J. W.| title = Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest| location = Seattle| series = University of Washington Publications in Biology| date = 1959}}</ref> were all in use by various botanical authors. Usage depended on whether the author accepted Bentham's concept of the genus ''Micromeria'' or Briquet's broader concept of ''Satureja'',<ref name="doroszenko"/><ref name="brauchler-etal-2005">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.2307/25065421| volume = 54| issue = 3| pages = 639–650| last1 = Bräuchler| first1 = Christian| last2 = Meimberg| first2 = Harald| last3 = Abele| first3 = Tilman| last4 = Heubl| first4 = Günther| title = Polyphyly of the Genus ''Micromeria'' (Lamiaceae): Evidence from cpDNA sequence data| journal = Taxon| date = 2005| jstor = 25065421| url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233542346}}</ref> and also on some disagreement as to whether the species epithet ''chamissonis'' or ''douglasii'' took priority, as both names had been found in the original publication of this species.<ref name="jepson-1939"/> New discoveries of Lamiaceae species through the 20th century that did not fit well into Bentham's generic concepts led to more plant taxonomists (particularly in North America) embracing the broader genus concept of ''Satureja'' by the latter half of the 20th century, and use of the name ''Satureja douglasii'' for this species overwhelmingly predominated in [[field guide]]s and regional [[Flora (publication)|flora]]s as a result.<ref name="doroszenko"/>