Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
Authors: Applequist Wendy L. 
Published: August 2023

The following two generic names are recommended for conservation: Eulophia vs. Geodorum and Potentilla with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Ailanthus with feminine gender (because the proposal is unnecessary) and Kyphocarpa with that spelling (because the proposal is unnecessary). No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve Eriobotrya vs. Rhaphiolepis or Ferulago with conserved type. The following 24 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha wilkesiana vs. A. tricolor, Anthurium ×macrolobum vs. A. ×dentatum, Anthurium microspadix vs. A. porrectum, Asplenium arifolium with conserved type, Bosea yervamora with conserved type, Bougainvillea spectabilis vs. B. brasiliensis, Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. vs. B. aurea Harrison, Cachrys libanotis with conserved type, Cistus laevis vs. C. pilosus, Cistus violaceus vs. C. racemosus, Erysimum violascens, Ficus trigona with conserved type, Hedyotis diffusa with conserved type, Incarvillea arguta vs. I. diffusa, Lechea verticillata with conserved type, Leea macrophylla vs. Aralia lappifolia, Mesembryanthemum vanputtenii with that spelling, Nicotiana benthamiana with (amended) conserved type, Ophrys sphegodes with conserved type, Pancratium flavum vs. P. croceum, Rubus dolichophyllus vs. R. chingianus, Triticum caninum with conserved type, Urtica involucrata Roxb. vs. U. involucrata Sims, and Warczewiczella marginata vs. Zygopetalum fragrans. The following six species names are not recommended for conservation: Bertolonia carmoi vs. B. ovata, Carex krausei with that spelling, Coprosma grandifolia with conserved type, Coumarouna panamensis vs. Dipteryx oleifera, Lilium dauricum vs. L. pensylvanicum, and Rubus tsangiorum vs. R. hatsushimae. No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve Heliamphora heterodoxa with conserved type or Pomaderris kumarahou with that spelling. The following 15 species names are recommended for rejection: Acalypha supera, Bruea bengalensis, Callitriche cruciata, Callitriche dioica, Callitriche ovata, Callitriche plena, Chenopodium pallidum, Cicendia stricta, Ephedra major, Epidendrum flabellum‐veneris, Glyphospermum ornatum, Juniperus lycia, Kalanchoe aleurodes, Mollugo triphylla, and Stellaria intermedia. The following three species names are not recommended for rejection: Chenopodium viride, Primula sawyeri, and Senecio nebrodensis. It is recommended that Photinia zhejiangensis and P. zhijiangensis not be treated as homonyms. The Committee recommends against making binding decisions on whether Eleiotis and Eleotis or Chionanthus henryae and “C. henryi” (ined.) should be treated as homonyms, since they clearly should not be. It is recommended that Diapensia brevistyla, Gentiana stagulata, Gentiana tsarongensis, Leontopodium forrestianum, Rhododendron meddianum var. atrokermesinum, and Rhododendron sericocalyx be treated as validly published in or ex W.W. Smith & al. (1924–1930) and that Aneilema vitiense be treated as validly published in 1861. It is recommended that Griselinia macrophylla be treated as not validly published and that Rhododendron lophogynum be treated as not validly published by Smith & al. The Committee recommends against making binding decisions regarding the adequacy of descriptive statements of Pyrenaria jonquieriana by Lanellan or of Rhododendron hardingii by Smith & al., in the latter case because it was certainly not validly published.