Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 73
Authors: Applequist Wendy L. 
Published: February 2023

SummaryThe following 18 generic names are recommended for conservation: Calanthe vs. Phaius, Cyanorkis, and Gastorkis, Dipteryx vs. Baryosma, Distichia Nees & Meyen vs. Distichia (Brid.) Brid., Dracontomelon with conserved type, Graffenrieda vs. Centronia, Holothrix vs. Bartholina, Ipomoea with new conserved type, Lepisorus vs. Lemmaphyllum and Neocheiropteris and vs. Macroplethus, Leptopteris C. Presl vs. Leptopteris Brongn., Melanocenchris vs. Gracilea, Meniocus with conserved type, Paepalanthus vs. Tonina, Paramongaia vs. Callithauma, Stenokalyx J. Schiller vs. Stenocalyx O. Berg, Telosma vs. Stephanotella, Weberbauerocereus with conserved type, Withania with new conserved type, and Zephyranthes vs. Sprekelia. The following four generic names are not recommended for conservation: Cheilocostus vs. Hellenia and Tsiana, Eremophila vs. Bontia, Myoporum, and Andreusia, Kissenia vs. Cnidone, and Phyllocarpus vs. Tapanhuacanga. No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve the generic names Astroloba vs. Poellnitzia, Hypopitys with conserved type, Parakeelya vs. Rumicastrum, or Tetraria with conserved type. The generic name Tutuca is recommended for rejection. The tribal name Antiarideae is not recommended for rejection. The following 49 species names are recommended for conservation: Aloe glauca with conserved type, Aloe melanacantha vs. A. muricata, Anacardium humile vs. A. mediterraneum, Andropogon ischaemum with conserved type, Apeiba tibourbou with conserved type, Asparagus draco with that spelling, Asplenium erosum with conserved type, Betula humilis Schrank vs. B. humilis Marshall, Blechnum indicum with conserved type, Bromus inermis with conserved type, Campanula cochleariifolia vs. C. bellardii, Cassyta baccifera vs. Cactus parasiticus, Centaurea axillaris with conserved type, Cereus imbricatus with conserved type, Chenopodium giganteum with conserved type, Chenopodium quinoa vs. C. purpurascens and C. punctulatum, Cola cauliflora with conserved type, Coronilla minima with conserved type, Crotalaria ramosissima vs. C. pellita, Cycas pectinata with conserved type, Dalbergia monetaria vs. Pterocarpus ovalis, Datura innoxia with that spelling, Dendrobium ×gracillimum vs. D. ×nitidum, Grewia rhamnifolia with conserved type, Habenaria longicornu with that spelling, Hedyotis caudatifolia vs. H. hui, Lepidium pumilum vs. L. descemetii, Micropera rostrata (Roxb.) N.P. Balakr. vs. M. rostrata (Sacc. & Ellis) Höhn., Myrtus cauliflora vs. Guapurium peruvianum, Nepenthes ×hookeriana with conserved type, Oncidium barbaceniae with conserved type, Pandanus ornatus Kurz vs. P. ornatus W. Bull with a conserved type, Panicum crus‐galli with conserved type, Philippodendrum regium vs. Betula bella, Pinus halepensis with conserved type, Plumeria alba with conserved type, Polypodium adiantiforme vs. P. adianthoides, Polypodium rigidulum vs. P. simplex, Rheedia gardneriana vs. Tovomita calyptrata, Rhododendron ponticum with conserved type, Rubus parviflorus Nutt. vs. R. parviflorus Weston, Senecio palmatisectus vs. S. pelleifolius, Silene linearis Decne. vs. S. linearis Sweet, Stipa ucrainica P.A. Smirn. vs. S. ucranica Roem. & Schult., Talauma fistulosa with conserved type, Teucrium polium with conserved type, Tontelia attenuata vs. Matenus amygdalina, Tragopogon hirsutus with conserved type, and Verbena fluminensis vs. V. pseudogervao. The following eight species names are not recommended for conservation: Androsace bulleyana vs. A. coccinea, Centaurea crocata Franco vs. C. crocata Gand., Lycopodium mirabile with conserved type (because the proposal is unnecessary), Papaver pseudo‐orientale (Fedde) Medw. vs. P. ×pseudo‐orientale E.G. Camus, Photinia glomerata vs. P. griffithii, Primula sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. vs. P. sinensis Lour., Stenoptera montana vs. Prescottia pteristyloides, and Vitis sylvestris C.C. Gmel. vs. V. sylvestris W. Bartram. No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve the species names Acer heptaphlebium vs. A. taiwanense, Heliamphora heterodoxa with conserved type, Polystichum omeiense vs. P. caruifolium, Statice minuta with conserved type. The following 15 species names are recommended for rejection: Acrostichum webbii, Agave expatriata, Amomum grana‐paradisi, Atriplex bengalensis, Chloranthus elatior, Cleome capensis, Commelina carnea, Iris biflora, Maytenus tovarensis, Orobanche rubi, Radermachia rotunda, Thymus cephalotos, Trevia hernandiifolia, Tutuca chilensis, and Tutuca fistulosa. The following three species names are not recommended for rejection: Hypochaeris urens, Lippia riedeliana, and Lunaria perennis. No recommendation is made regarding the proposal to reject the species name Statice reticulata. The suppression of Diels, Plantae Chinenses Forrestianae, is recommended. It is recommended that Ferdinanda Lag. and Ferdinandia Welw. ex Seem., Garretia Welw. and Garrettia H.R. Fletcher, and P. nilgherensis (Kuntze) Govaerts & Chakrab. and Psychotria nilgiriensis Deb & M. Gangop. be treated as homonyms. The Committee recommends against making binding decisions on whether Argostemma and Agrostemma, Gymnostachys and Gymnostachyum, Aspidium stenopteris and A. stenopteron, or Sideritis ×arizagana and S. ×arizagae, should be treated as homonyms, since they certainly should not be. It is recommended that Agave lophantha, Cinchona cordifolia, C. lancifolia, C. oblongifolia, C. ovalifolia, Euphorbia candelabrum, and Kalanchoe delagoensis be treated as validly published. The Committee recommends against making binding decisions regarding the adequacy of descriptive statements associated with Alsophila brunoniana Wall. and “Polypodium contaminans Wall.”, in the latter case because it was certainly not validly published. No recommendation is made regarding the request for a binding decision on the adequacy of the descriptive statement associated with Thea dormoyana Less.