(1657–1665) Proposals to conserve eight names and reject one species name in Cladoniaceae (Fungi)

During the preparation of a catalogue of names in the lichen family Cladoniaceae, with their typifications, we have come across several cases where a well-established name can be saved only through conservation or rejection. We here propose eight names for conservation and one name for rejection. Many of these names were earlier typi fied in the Names in Current Use List (NCU) by Ahti (in Regnum Veg. 128: 58-106. 1993). However, the proposed NCU rules failed to gain acceptance in the nomenclature sessions of two botanical congresses (Tokyo 1993, St. Louis 1999) and some of the proposed typifications based on their future acceptance are not in accordance with application of the present ICBN (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 138. 2000). A few of the 1993 typifications by Ahti were already rectified by Jorgensen & al. (in J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 115: 261^104) and Ahti (in FI. Neotr. Mon. 78. 2000) but some are corrected here. The option to conserve specific names, introduced into the ICBN after the Tokyo Congress in 1993, has essentially improved the possibility to maintain well established names in use in Cladoniaceae. The endangered nomenclatural status of many of these names has been known to lichenologists for a long time but the required synonymy has been delayed because too many familiar names would have been abandoned. A notorious example is Laundon's (in Lichenologist 16: 211-239. 1984) numerous typifications of W. Withering's neglected names. However, such typification of old names is generally extremely laud able, and the unpleasant results can now be efficiently mit igated by the new provisions within the present ICBN. One rich source of designated or potential types of lichen names are the illustrations (drawings) in the Historia Muscorum by Dillenius (1742). For most of the illustrations the Dillenian herbarium in Oxford (OXF-Dillenius, Hist. Muse.) contains the original lichen specimens. These are a good source for epitypes for numerous names in Cladoniaceae. In principle, one should perhaps designate a modern specimen (preferably in an exsiccata series) as epi type, but in the case of Dillenian figurers we have usually preferred to designate an epitype from the Dillenian herbar ium, especially when the identity of the specimen in the illustration is obvious. Several specimens are cited below, using the numbering system adopted by Darbishire in Druce & Vines, The Dillenian Herbaria (1907). (1657) Baeomyces bacillaris Ach., Methodus: 329. Jan-Apr 1803 [Fungi], nom. cons. prop. Typus: England, Durham, Cleveland, Ayton Moor, W. Mudd in Mudd, Monogr. Brit. Cladon. [exs.] No. 70 (BM; isotypi: FH, UPS), typ. cons. prop.