Aspidosperma Mart. & Zucc.in Flora 7(1, Beil. 4): 135. 1824, nom. cons. Type: Aspidosperma tomentosum Mart. & Zucc., typ. cons.

= Coutinia Vell., Quinogr. Portug.: 166. 1799, nom. rej. Type: Coutinia illustris Vell.

= Macaglia Rich. ex Vahl in Skr. Naturhist.- Selsk. 6: 107. 1810, nom. rej. Type (designated by Woodson in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 38(2): 136. 1951): Macaglia alba Vahl.

= Peltospermum DC. in Biblioth. Universelle Geneve, nouv. sér. 17: 133. 1838. Type: “ Peltospermum patrisii ” DC. ex A.DC., pro syn.

= Thyroma Miers, Apocyn. S. Am.: 22. 1878. Type (designated by Woodson in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 38(2): 136. 1951): Thyroma sessiliflora (Müll.Arg.) Miers.

= Paralyxia Baill. in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1(94): 748. 1888. Type: Paralyxia schomburgkii Baill.

= Cufodontia Woodson in Cufod. in Arch. Bot. Sist. 10(1): 38. 1934. Type: Cufodontia stegomeris Woodson.

“ Ostreocarpus ” Rich., Gen. Pl.: 1396. 1840, pro syn.

Notes —Since detailed descriptions of the species presented in the protologue of Aspidosperma were later published in “ Nova Genera et Species Plantarum ” by Martius (1824), for many years, this publication was treated as the original publication of the genus (Stafleu & Cowan 1981). Marcondes-Ferreira (1988) correctly recognized that Aspidosperma was first published in “ Flora ”, but attributed its authorship only to Martius, mentioning an excerpt from the cover page of “ Nova Genera et Species Plantarum ” in which Martius had attributed to Zuccarini only the organization of the work’s illustrations and notes (Martius & Zuccarini 1824). However, since both Martius and Zuccarini signed the manuscript published in “ Flora ”, we understand that they should be cited as authors of Aspidosperma and the species described therein, despite the comments made by Martius.

It is worth mentioning that prior to the publication of Aspidosperma, the names Coutinia and Macaglia were already being applied to this taxon. Firstly, due to the already widespread usage of the name Aspidosperma, Harms (1904) formally proposed conserving this name against Macaglia, probably not knowing about the existence of the name Coutinia at the time. A few years later, Kuhlmann & Pirajá (1925) recognized that Coutinia was also congeneric with Aspidosperma, but the formal proposal for rejecting Coutinia was later made by Fallen (1981).