Kirschner & Štěpánek deliberately picked a lectotype for T. officinale that cannot be ID’d to microspecies in order to preserve the common usage. They did that specifically to avoid the issue in T. erythrospermum where when discussing ‘T. erythrospermum’ it is not immediately obvious whether the macrospecies or microspecies concept is being referenced.
They clearly made a concerted effort to justify what they were doing in precise technical alignment with the Code of Botanical Nomenclature while also allowing T. officinale to be used in the common macrospecies usage. First, they argue that Article 9.17(b) allows them to supersede Richards’ proposed microspecies-identifiable lectotype in Section Crocea because Linneaus describes the bracts of T. officinale differently from Richards’ specimen. Second, they went through every extant specimen that Linneaus labelled as ‘T. officinale’ (which therefore can be considered ‘elements of the original material’), and picked out the ones that fit every element of Linneaus’ description exactly but nevertheless could not be ID’d definitively to a specific microspecies. There were 3 such suitable specimens and they picked one of those to call the lectotype. They actively encourage not attempting to circumvent the macrospecies-only interpretation of T. officinale as a name by trying to figure out what microspecies the specimen they picked should be a part of.