Aspidosperma carapanauba Pichon in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., sér. 2 19(4): 365. 1947.

≡ Geissospermum excelsum Kuhlm. in Arch. Inst. Biol. Veg. 2(1): 89. 1935, non Aspidosperma excelsum Benth. in J. Bot. 3: 245. 1841.

Holotype:— BRAZIL. Amazonas: Parintins, ao Oeste do Lago Uaicurapá, 6 Sep 1932, A. Ducke s.n. [A. Ducke [24491]] (RB (mounted on three herbarium sheets) [barcode 00535104!, barcode 00535159!, barcode 00535160!]; isotypes: A [barcode 02178446 image!], F [barcode V0092447F image!], K [barcode K000587684 image!], P [barcode P00645144 image!], S [No. S04-1799 image!], U [barcode U0000467 image!], WIS [barcode 00000925MAD image!]) .

Notes— Aspidosperma carapanauba was published as a replacement name for G. excelsum since the epithet “ excelsum ” was unavailable in Aspidosperma . Furthermore, once we have not found the annotation “No. 136” that appears in some sheets of G. excelsum (A (A barcode 02178446), F (F barcode V0092447F), and WIS (WIS barcode 00000925MAD)) in its protologue, we believe that it is unrelated to the collection, resulting from a processing error.

Kuhlmann (1935) indicated the gathering Ducke s.n. from the herbarium RB (RB No. 24491, as “24471” in Woodson (1951)) in the prologue of G. excelsum . Based on this information and the materials analyzed, we consider that the three herbarium sheets with this information in RB (RB barcodes 00535104, 00535159, and 00535160) belong to a single specimen mounted on three sheets since they possess a single original label in common, received the same voucher number, and are physically kept together (ICN article 8.3, Ex. 9; Turland et al. 2018).