Aspidosperma leucocymosum Kuhlm. in Arch. Inst. Biol. Veg. 2(1): 88. 1935.

≡ Aspidosperma leucostachys Kuhlm. ex Markgr. in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 12(115): 558. 1935, nom. illeg. superfl.

Holotype:— BRAZIL. Amazonas: Rio Curicuriari, afluente do Rio Negro, margem alta, 21 Dec 1931, A. Ducke s.n. [A. Ducke [24492]] (RB (mounted on two herbarium sheets) [barcode 00535000!, barcode 00535049!]; isotypes: F [fragment] [barcode V0092465F image!], G (mounted on two herbarium sheets) [barcode G00190818 image!], IAN [No. 50584!], K [barcode K000587695 image!], MO [barcode MO-1845735 image!], P [barcode P00645102 image!], S [No. S04-1769 image!], U [barcode U0000477 image!], US [barcode 00111803 image!]) .

Notes —Since A. leucocymosum and A. leucostachys share the same type, the oldest name has priority. Therefore, A. leucocymosum takes precedence since it was published in September 1935 (Kuhlmann 1935), while A. leucostachys was published in December 1935 (Markgraf 1935a) (ICN article 11.4; Turland et al. 2018).

Also, Kuhlmann (1935) indicated the gathering Ducke s.n. from the herbarium RB (RB No. 24492, as “24472” in Woodson (1951)) in the prologue of A. leucocymosum . Based on this information and the materials analyzed, we consider that the two herbarium sheets with this information in RB (RB barcodes 00535000 and 00535049) belong to a single specimen mounted on two sheets as 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). Lastly, it is worth mentioning that the collection date indicated by Kuhlmann (1935) in the prologue of A. leucocymosum is probably incorrect (“ 21- III-1934 ”), as the date “ 21 December 1931 ” appears in the holotype and isotypes.