probably is of E. fragilis. If it were designated as the lectotype of Host’s name, E. major would have been widely and persistently used in the sense of E. nebrodensis, i.e., not including the type of E. major, and then Art. 57.1 of the ICN would need to be applied. We might propose the name E. major for conservation under Art. 14.1 of the ICN with a conserved type belonging to E. nebrodensis. However, this would not clarify the confused nomenclatural history of the name E. major. Therefore, we propose instead its rejection under Art. 56.1. Author information SB, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2568-7278 EDG, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9349-1328 Acknowledgements We are grateful to N. Turland (Botanic Garden and Botanic Museum, Freie Universität, Berlin) and John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada) for useful suggestions and editorial comments. (2805) Proposal to conserve Eulophia, nom. cons., against the additional name Geodorum (Orchidaceae: Eulophiinae) Mark W. Chase, 1,2 Maarten J.M. Christenhusz, 2 Pankaj Kumar 3 & André Schuiteman 1 1 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, U.K. 2 Department of Environment and Agriculture, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia 3 Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong S.A.R., P.R. China Address for correspondence: Mark W. Chase, m.chase@kew.org DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12480 First published as part of this issue. See online for details. (2805) Eulophia R. Br. in Bot. Reg.: ad t. 573 (‘578’). 1 Nov 1821 (‘Eulophus’)[Orchid.], nom. et orth. cons. Typus: E. guineensis Lindl. (in Bot. Reg.: t. 686. 1 Feb 1823), typ. cons. (=) Graphorkis Thouars in Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris 1: 318. Apr 1809 (nom. cons.) (etiam vide), nom. rej. (=) Geodorum Andrews in Bot. Repos.: ad t. 626. Jun 1811, nom. rej. prop. Typus: G. citrinum Andrews (=) Lissochilus R. Br. in Bot. Reg.: ad t. 573 (‘578’). 1 Nov 1821, nom. rej. Typus: L. speciosus R. Br. Phylogenetic analyses of the orchid subtribe Eulophiinae (Martos & al. in Taxon 63: 9–23. 2014; Bone & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 179: 43–56. 2015) have clearly demonstrated that the genus Eulophia as currently circumscribed is not monophyletic, with Acrolophia Pfitzer (Entwurf Anordn. Orch.: 59. 1887), Geodorum Andrews (in Bot. Repos.: ad t. 626. 1811), Oeceoclades Lindl. (in Edwards’s Bot. Reg.: ad t. 1522. 1832) and several other genera embedded. Most names in the other embedded genera exist in Eulo- phia, but not for species published as Geodorum, an older name. Eulophia in the broad sense (including Acrolophia and Oeceoclades) is a relatively large genus (c. 250 species; Chase & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 177: 151–174. 2015). It has a pantropical distribution, but with the greatest species diversity in Africa where it is important in many floras. It figures to a minor extent in horticulture. Geodorum is found in tropical Asia and Australasia and has only 9 species (Chase & al., l.c.), none commonly found in horticulture. It differs from Eulophia in the entire lip (versus mostly lip 3-lobed) and in its inflorescence structure: the flower-bearing apex is nodding. To avoid the need to transfer Oeceoclades and Acrolophia to Eulophia, Martos & al. (l.c.) and Bone & al. (l.c.) proposed to segregate Orthochilus Hochst. ex A. Rich. (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 2: 284. 1850) from Eulophia, emphasiz- ing that the sepals of these species are similar in colour to the petals, whereas those in Eulophia s.str. are dissimilar. However, this differ- ence and others mentioned by those authors also occur often in Eulo- phia s.str., if comparisons are made with the Asian/Australasian species. Even if exclusion of the genus Orthochilus as advanced by Martos & al. (l.c.) and Bone & al. (l.c.) is accepted, the issue of the priority of Geodorum over Eulophia s.str. would still need to be addressed because Bone & al. (l.c.) found Geodorum to be deeply embedded in a clade that includes the type of Eulophia. Indeed these authors (l.c.: 53) indicated their submission of a proposal to conserve the latter name over the former; however, no such proposalwas ever submitted. We advocate instead a broad generic concept of Eulophia including all these genera, all of which, except Geodorum, have been included by at least some authors in Eulophia in the past. Geodorum preceded Eulophia by 10 years, and both names are still in common © 2021 The Authors. TAXON published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. 432 Version of Record Chase & al. • (2805) Conserve Eulophia TAXON 70 (2) • April 2021: 432–433