Typification and check-list of Musa L. names (Musaceae) with nomenclatural notes Häkkinen, Markku Väre, Henry Adansonia 2008 3 30 1 63 112   291.  Musa uranoscoposLour., nom. illeg. superfl.   Flora Cochinchinensis: 645 (1790).  REMARKS In his diagnosis Loureiro (1790)wrote: “quae  Musa troglodytarumLin.sp. 3”, meaning “this is  Musa troglodytarumof Linnaeus sp. 3”. Apparently Loureiro did not like the name  M. troglodytarumL. (“banana of the cave-dwellers”), and rehabilitated  M. uranoscoposRumph.(  uranoscopos“star-gazing”; Rumphius 1747: 137). According to the Code( McNeill et al. 2006: Art. 7.5) such a superfluous illegitimate name is automatically typified by the typeof the name which ought to have been adopted under the Code, as Loureiro did not designated his own specimen as a “ type”. Liu et al.(2002)also stated, that the name  M. uranoscoposLour.is not valid. Their reasoning was wrong, however. They refer to the Code( McNeill et al. 2006: Art. 53.1) dealing with later homonyms. They claimed that according to Loureiro (1793)  M. uranoscoposRumph. ( Rumphius 1747)is not different from  M. paradisiacaL. and  M. sapientumL. However, Loureirowrote: “Differt. spec. Mus. [Differt speciebus  Musa] racemo erecto: spathis partialibus sub-bifloris: fructu compresso, polyspermo”, meaning “differs from [other]  Musaspeciesby the erect raceme, by the partial [secondary?] mostly 2-flowered spathae and by the compressed, multi-seeded fruit”, and “At  M. paradisiaca&  M. sapientuminter se species non differunt, cum earum notae non verificentur, nex meliores invenio in tota  Musa cliffortiana, quamvus amplissima”, meaning “but  M. paradisiacaand  M. sapientumdoes not differ from each others, as their distinguishing characters cannot be confirmed, I prefer to unite these as in a single broadly circumscribed species  M. cliffortiana”. According to Stafleu & Cowan (1981)the second part of Flora Cochinchinensiswas published in 1793.