How Kalanchoe marmorata (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae), a distinctive central and east African species, received its name, and the later, valid publication of K. macrantha by Maire Smith, Gideon F. Phytotaxa 2021 2021-05-21 502 1 93 100 3QYM5 Baker, Gardn. Chronicle 1892 [199,460,1297,1324] Magnoliopsida Crassulaceae Kalanchoe Plantae Saxifragales 1 94 Tracheophyta species marmorata  Nowhere in Baker (1893: 458), where he recorded that he described the Abyssinian plant as  K. marmorata, is the designation ‘  K. macrantha’ mentioned. This is further evidence that Baker himself did not accept his “suggest[-ed]” ‘  K. macrantha’ as a replacement name for  K. grandifloraA.Rich., nom. illeg. Similarly, the designation ‘  K. macrantha’ was not mentioned in the text that accompanied the plate of  K. marmoratathat appeared in Curtis’s Botanical Magazine( Hooker 1894: t. 7333). Note though that one year earlier, Sprenger (1893: 513)still used the illegitimate name  K. grandifloraA.Rich.for this species. If Baker (1892: 300)had indeed validly published the name  K. macranthaas a replacement name for  K. grandifloraA.Rich.non Wight& Arn. and therefore had not “merely propose[-d] [‘  K. macrantha’] in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon […]” ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 36.1), then  K. macrantha(under such circumstances as a name, not a designation) and  K. marmoratawould have had equal priority. The acceptance by Baker (1893: 458)of the name  K. marmoratafor a species that would have included the typeof the name  K. macrantha, i.e., that of  K. grandifloraA.Rich.non Wight& Arn., would have established the precedence of  K. marmorataover  K. macrantha( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 11.5). Under Article 11.5, the first choice to be effectively published establishes the priority of the chosen name. Article 11.5 Note 3 further provides that such a choice is exercised when one of the competing names (or its final epithet) is adopted and the other name(s) or their homotypic synonyms are simultaneously rejected or relegated to synonymy. The unambiguous expression by Baker (1893: 458)of the view that the name  K. marmoratais to be used, would have sufficed as “simultaneously rejecting or relegating to synonymy the other(s) or their homotypic (nomenclatural) synonyms” ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 11.5 Note 3). A well-known example of just such a situation had developed some 20 years earlier when  Aloidendron barberae( Thiselton Dyer 1874a: 566) Klopper & Gideon F.Sm.in Grace et al. (2013: 9), the iconic tree aloe of South Africa’s eastern seaboard, was first described in the same paper as both  Aloe barberae Thiselton Dyer (1874a: 566)and as  A. bainesii Thiselton Dyer (1874a: 567). However, seven months later in December of the same year, Thiselton Dyer (1874b)noted that he then believed the two species to be identical, and he explicitly placed the name  A. bainesiias a synonym under  A. barberae. Shortly afterwards Thiselton Dyer (1874c)repeated his preference for the name  A. barberaeas opposed to  Aloe bainesii(see also Walker et al. 2019and Figueiredo & Smith 2020). In expressing this preference, Thiselton Dyer determined which epithet must be applied to the tree aloe, which would become known as  Aloe barberae( Smith et al. 1994), now  Aloidendron barberae. This would also have applied to  K. marmorata, with  K. macranthahaving been effectively synonymised by Baker (1893: 458), even though in typical 19 thcentury courteous fashion he did not use the word “reject” nor even “synonymy”, but Thiselton Dyer (1874b: 91)was clearer and deliberately stated: “The name A. [  Aloe]  Bainesiimust therefore be merged as a synonym in  A. Barberae.”