Lamiastrum versusGaleobdolon and comments on problems of unitary designations inFabricius’s work 'Enumeratio methodica plantarum horti medici helmstadiensis'

The nomenclatural validity of the names published inFabriciusś work “Enumeratio methodica plantarum horti medici helmstadiensis” has been revised, with special reference to those of monotypic genera. The arguments for recognizing these names as validly published are given, and also reasons for regarding them as unitary designations of species. After consideration of all the arguments the author is convinced that the names in question are not validly published generic names as they are to be regarded as uninomial designations of species. Special attention is given to the nameLamiastrum Heister exFabricius (1759), which has recently been adopted as the correct name for the genus generally known asGaleobdolon Adans. 1763, but is here regarded as not validly-published. As the nameGaleobdolon Adans. itself may not necessarily be regarded as legitimate on account of the inclusion of the type species of the nameGaleopsis L. 1753 in the circumscription of the genus, the author here makes a proposal for the conservation of this name which has been so often used in botanical literature. The genusGaleobdolon is considered to be represented only by one aggregate with three species, the names of which are critically revised. For the diploid species occurring in the East Alps a new nomenclatural combination is proposed—Galeobdolon flavidum (Hermann) Holur— andHudson’s concept of the type species of the nameGaleobdolon has to be amended by a restriction. In an Appendix the results are given of a short revision of the so-called “generic” names inFabricius’s work, with suggestions for further detailed investigation. At the same time some amendments to the List of “Nomina generica conservanda” are proposed, and attention is drawn to the necessity for certain changes in the citations of some generic names commonly taken up fromFabricius’s work.