Podocarpus rotundus de Laub. (1978) refers to a tree with a relatively limited distribution in dwarf mossy forests in Philippines and eastern Borneo. Although its conservation status has not been re-assessed under the latest IUCN criteria, it has been classed as Vulnerable and is included in several red lists of threatened species (see below). The name is, however, antedated by P rotundus Bocharn. (1960), published by A. D. Bocharni-kova for a Palaeocene morphospecies (Art. 1.2 of the ICBN, Greuter & al., Regnum Veg. 138. 2000), based on fossil pollen from Russia. Although of plants...based on a non-fossil are treated as having priority over names of the same rank based on a fossil... type (Art. 11.7 Note 4), that only applies to names that are synonymous and are being united; in this case the names are homonyms and Art. 53.1 applies. Therefore P rotundus de Laub. is illegitimate and a new name must be given to it unless de Laubenfels's name is conserved over P. rotundus Bocharn. under Art. 14. The Palaeocene fossil pollen from Russia, for which P rotundus Bocharn. was used, has two bladders, as occur in the pollen of Recent Podocarpus species, and also in many Pinaceae. Bochamikova's illustration, even as reproduced by Kremp & al. (Cat. Foss. Spores Pollen 16: sheet 92. 1962) does, however, show the thin bulbous air sacs that are large in relation to the size of the body and that distinguish the pollen of Podocarpus from that of other genera (A. Graham, pers. comm.). Bochamrnikova allied it to 'Podocarpus decorus Bolkh.', from Crimea (an invalid name because published after 1 Jan. 1953 with the alternative name 'Platysaccus decorus Bolkh.': Art. 34.2); the pollen does not much resemble any of the wide range of extant Podocarpaceae pollen illustrated by Ueno (Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 18: 203 fig. II. 1960). Therefore, there is a possibility that Bocharnikova's fossil specimen may not in fact represent Podocarpus pollen even though the climate in many parts of Russia in Palaeocene times would have been sufficiently warm to allow Podocarpaceae to flourish (as evidenced by macrofossils from the Russian Far East). Neither the proposer nor palaeopalynologists consulted (J. Jansonius, Calgary & A. Graham, Kent, Ohio) know of any review of gymnosperm microfossils from this region, nor of any work describing Podocarpaceae macrofossils from the Urals region that would substantiate the identification of the microfossils assigned by Bocharnikova to Podocarpus, and thus by implication to Podocarpaceae. Hence, it might be better to re-assign Bocharnikova's P rotundus, and her many other fossil 'Podocarpus' morphospecies, to Sporae Dispersae until they are re-investigated. Only one instance of the use of P rotundus Bocharn. has been traced in the literature: the original protologue (Bocharnikova 1.c.) and a facsimile reproduction of it (Kremp & al., 1.c., which has some additional information), although it is not impossible that other mentions occur in the Russian palaeobotanical literature. Podocarpus rotundus de Laub. was applied to a species originally collected on Luzon (Philippines) by Maximo Ramos. The Leiden isotype is actually labelled Laguna Prov., Mt. Banajao, Jan. 1913, and it is clear that the number 19581 is not in fact Ramos's own collection number (as implied in de Laubenfels' citation quoted above) but a serial number allotted to the specimen by the Philippines Bureau of Science. This tree, unlike R rotundus Bocharn., is an undisputed extant member of the Podocarpaceae and, like all other tropical Asian Podocarpus species, belongs to P subg. Foliolatus de Laub. Within that subgenus, it has been assigned to sect. Gracilis de Laub. (Blumea 30: 272. 1985), of which the is P pilgeri Foxw. Podocarpus rotundus de Laub. has a relatively limited distribution in Luzon and Tayabas provinces (Philippines) and on Mt. Beratus near