In the protologue of Polypodium platylobum Baker (in Hooker & Baker, Syn. Fil.: 307. 1867), the author presented, just after the species description, the following citation of a gathering: “Hab. Tarapota, N. E. Peru, Spruce, 4656.” Subsequently, 124 years later in Pteridophyta of Peru, Tryon & Stolze (in Fieldiana, Bot., n.s., 27: 15. 1991) published the following nomenclatural paragraph for this name: “Polypodium platylobum Baker, Syn. fil. 307. 1867. TYPE: Mt. Guayrapurima, near Tarapoto (San Martín), Spruce 4656 (holotype, K!; isotypes, BM!, K!, P!).” An experienced nomenclaturist will notice two things about the kinds of types cited by Tryon & Stolze (l.c.). First, the name was published in 1867, long before the type method became common practice. Baker, when he cited the entire gathering “Spruce, 4656” in the protologue, did not mention “type” or anything that would have designated a holotype, as the subsequent paragraph by Tryon & Stolze appears to claim. Second, there are four specimens of the gathering by Spruce, each in different herbaria. That means there are four syntypes, not a holotype and its isotypes (Art. 9.6 of the Shenzhen Code – Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). An experienced nomenclaturist will also note that the paragraph by Tryon & Stolze lectotypified the name, although nowhere is this evident in the paragraph itself. By citing (even incorrectly) Spruce 4656 at K as the “holotype”, that specimen must be treated as the lectotype under Art. 7.11 (cf. Ex. 13) and Art. 9.10 (cf. Ex. 11) of the Shenzhen Code. Note that it was never the intent of Tryon & Stolze to lectotypify, but that is exactly what happened according to the current rules of the Code. Instances such as the above are common for many early names that were based on syntypes or uncited original material. These names were often lectotypified unknowingly when a later author cited one of the syntypes (or uncited specimens) as “type” or “holotype”. Much less often, names were neotypified when there was no original material but a specimen wrongly believed to be such was designated as “type” or “holotype” (see Art. 7 Ex. 14). The specimen cited was usually one present in the describing author's herbarium or home institution. Accordingly, lectotypifications and neotypifications may be achieved in two ways. First, before 1 January 2001, they may be achieved non-explicitly, as in the above example. Second, on or after 1 January 2001, they must be achieved explicitly by stating “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (see Art. 9.23) and “designated here” (see Art. 7.11) or equivalents of these words (e.g. abbreviations or in other languages). The above example—and thousands like it—cause confusion in two ways. First, the incorrect kind of type (by today's definitions) is accepted, not corrected, by later taxonomists. Second, the lecto- or neotypification is overlooked by taxonomists because it was made non-explicitly, without the conspicuous “designated here” or equivalent. This oversight may result in a new and superfluous lecto- or neotypification. Unfortunately, both confusions tend to be perpetuated in monographs, floras, and databases. To avoid this situation, it would be helpful to have a term that brings attention to non-explicit lecto- and neotypifications. Accordingly, we propose the term “non-explicit typification”. It should help bring attention to this often overlooked manner of lectotypification and (to a far lesser degree) neotypification, not only for a particular name, but also for names in general. “7X.n. When citing designations of lectotype and neotype (and their equivalents under Art. 10) that were achieved before 1 January 2001 in a non-explicit manner (i.e. without the use of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (Art. 9.23) and “designated here” (Art. 7.11) or their equivalents), authors should use the phrase “non-explicitly designated by” (or an equivalent) after the kind of type, e.g. “lectotype, non-explicitly designated by [author(s)]” followed by the bibliographic reference or date.” “non-explicit typification. [Not defined] – a designation of lectotype or neotype (or its equivalent under Art. 10) that was achieved before 1 January 2001 in a non-explicit manner; that is, without the use of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” and “designated here” or their equivalents (Rec. 7X.n).”