The genus Kumara Medikus (1786: 69) was recently reinstated in the Xanthorrhoeaceae: Asphodeloideae (alternatively Asphodelaceae: Alooideae) comprising only one species, namely the fan aloe, Kumara disticha Medikus (1786: 70) [with Aloe plicatilis (Linnaeus 1753: 321) Miller (1768: 7) given as a synonym] (Grace et al. 2013). However, if the fan aloe, currently known as Aloe plicatilis, is treated as a species of Kumara, the epithet plicatilis has priority and a new combination in Kumara is required. The new combination is made here. Kumara disticha Medik., used as correct name for the fan aloe by Grace et al. (2013), is in reality a superfluous name. According to the synonymy provided by Medikus (1786: 70), it has to be considered as a new combination based on Aloe disticha Linnaeus (1753: 321) [i.e. the correct author citation is Kumara disticha (L.) Medik.]. It is thus a nomenclatural synonym of Gasteria disticha (L.) Haworth (1827: 352), even though the intention of Medikus (1786), as substantiated by the accompanying plate (Medikus 1786: t.4), was clearly to apply it to the fan aloe (Klopper et al. 2013). The type of Kumara was designated by Rowley (1976: 55) as K. disticha, thus making the names Kumara (1786) and Gasteria Duval (1809: 6) synonyms for the same genus. Since Kumara has priority, the implication of this in terms of nomenclatural disruptions is severe. To retain use of the names Kumara and Gasteria in the sense that it was intended by Medikus (1786) and Duval (1809), and has been applied for th
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.