(2848) Epidendrum flabellum-veneris J. Koenig in Retzius, Observ. Bot. 6: 57. Jul–Nov 1791 [Angiosp.: Orchid.], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. The name Bulbophyllum lepidum (Blume) J.J. Sm. (Orch. Java: 471. 1905), based on Ephippium lepidum Blume (Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 310. 1825), has long been applied to a species widely distributed in tropical Southeast Asia, including India (Andaman Islands), Thailand, Myanmar, southern China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Moluccas and the Philippines. Blume (l.c.) described the species on the basis of collections from Java, Indonesia. The most distinctive diagnostic character separating B. lepidum from its congeners is its enlarged and antrorse column wings, with rounded stelidia overtopped by the wings (Smith, l.c. 1905; Holttum, Rev. Fl. Malaya 1: 415. 1957; Vermeulen & al., Bulbophyllum Borneo: 95. 2015). The distinctive morphology makes it easily distinguished. Seidenfaden, in his book on König's names (Descr. Epidendrorum J.G. König: 39. 1995), noted that an earlier name existed that he considered applicable to the species. This was Epidendrum flabellum-veneris J. Koenig (in Retzius, Observ. Bot. 6: 57. 1791) that he treated as conspecific with the later Ephippium lepidum. The new combination Cirrhopetalum flabellum-veneris (J. Koenig) Seidenf. & Ormerod (‘flabelloveneris’) was published (Seidenfaden, l.c. 1995) and this was transferred to the genus Bulbophyllum as B. flabellum-veneris (J. Koenig) Aver. (Updated Checkl. Orchids Vietnam: 73. 2003). However, during a taxonomic review of Bulbophyllum in Asia, we discovered that the identity of Epidendrum flabellum-veneris is unclear. We have not located any traceable original material in herbaria that are known to preserve König specimens. Given the vagueness of the description in the protologue, many species of Bulbophyllum sect. Ephippium would fit the description, something that was also pointed out by Vermeulen & al. (l.c.: 97), who preferred to reject König's name, but did not make any formal proposal to do so. In fact, the name Bulbophyllum flabellum-veneris (J. Köenig) Aver. has only been occasionally used in the last 20 years, e.g., Seigerist (Bulbophyllum & Allies: 173. 2001, as “Cirrhopetalum flabellovernis”), Ong & al. (Wild Orchids Penins. Malaysia: 95. 2011), although the name is listed in several online nomenclatural databases (e.g., The Plant List, http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-222223; World Flora Online, http://www.wordfloraonline.org/search?query=Bulbophyllum+flabellum-veneris). In contrast, Bulbophyllum lepidum (Blume) J.J. Sm. is an explicitly defined species. The name B. lepidum has consistently been accepted in almost all the relevant national and regional floras, in other taxonomic literature since its publication (e.g., Schlechter in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 10: 185. 1911; Smith in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 32: 315. 1933; Holttum, l.c.: 415; Seidenfaden in Dansk Bot. Ark. 29: 43. 1973 & 33: 157. 1979, in Opera Bot. 114: 279. 1992; Seidenfaden & Wood, Orchids Penins. Malaysia Singapore: 441. 1992; Chen & al. in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 25: 434. 2009; Vermeulen & al. l.c.: 95), as well as in various online global databases (e.g., World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, https://wcsp.science.kew.org, accessed 9 Aug 2021). Furthermore, B. lepidum has been the preferred name for those working in horticulture. It has been widely adopted by horticulturists and extensively used as a parent to create new hybrids such as Bulbophyllum ‘Meen Buddy’, B. ‘Shirley’, B. ‘Worayuth White Fang’, B. ‘Meen Andaman Belle’, B. ‘My Lady Chirayupin’, B. ‘Meen Sassy Girl’, B. ‘Meen Mekong Lullaby’, etc. The precise taxonomic identity of Epidendrum flabellum-veneris has stayed obscure since its publication. Given that the taxonomically clear name Ephippium lepidum has had wide acceptance for over a century, we think it is best to reject the name Epidendrum flabellum-veneris rather than affirming its application to B. lepidum by designating a neotype referable to that species, which would only result in nomenclatural confusion. Therefore, in accordance with Art. 56 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), we formally propose the outright rejection of the name Epidendrum flabellum-veneris, as first suggested by Vermeulen & al. (l.c.: 97). LL, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7091-9686 SJL, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6596-5124 The authors are grateful to Dr. John McNeill for his valuable comments, suggestions and corrections of this proposal. We would also like to thank the curators and staff of herbaria BM, E, G, IBSC, K, KUN, L, P and PE for their kind hospitality and assistance during visits and for providing high-quality images of specimens of Bulbophyllum material. The work was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32070224, 31770215).