(2948) Croton fuscescens Spreng., Syst. Veg. 3: 874. Jan–Mar 1826 [Angiosp.: Euphorb.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Sellow (BR barcode 0000006999551; isotypi: G barcode G00441706, TUB barcode TUB-009138). (=) Croton gnaphaloides Schrad. in Gött. Gel. Anz. 1821: 708. 5 Mai 1821, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Moraes in Kew Bull. 66: 498. 2011): Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Paraíba, Sep–Oct 1815, Wied-Neuwied (GOET; isolectotypus: BR barcode 0000006592370!). Croton fuscescens Spreng. (Syst. Veg. 3: 874. 1826) is a shrub endemic to Brazilian Atlantic Forest, occurring in forest edges and clearings, between 200 and 1000 m elevation in northeastern (Alagoas, Bahia, Pernambuco, Sergipe), southeastern (Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro), and midwestern regions (Goiás) (https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB35828, accessed 12 Aug 2022). The species can be recognized by its blackish indumentum on young branches, flowers, and fruits; leaves without nectaries; leaf margin slightly serrate and venation pinnate; inflorescences terminal, bisexual, congested; stamens 11; sepals of pistillate flowers strongly unequal (3 sepals conspicuous and deeply laciniate, and 2 inconspicuous); and styles bifid (for a total of 6 stigmatic tips). The name was lectotypified by Caruzo & Cordeiro (in Hoehnea 34: 578. 2007), who concluded that there had been a holotype at B which had been destroyed [in the 1944 bombing]. Accordingly, they designated a duplicate at BR as lectotype. Croton fuscescens was transferred by Baillon (in Adansonia 4: 367. 1864) along with other Croton species to Julocroton Mart. (in Flora 20(2 Beibl.): 119. 1837). This generic assignment was followed by Johannes Müller [Argoviensis] (in Martius, Fl. Bras. 11(2): 286–287. 1873), who presented a detailed and extensive description of the species including synonyms and examined material. Webster (in J. Arnold Arbor. 48: 303–361. 1967) proposed Julocroton as a section of Croton and Radcliffe-Smith & Govaerts (in Kew Bull. 52: 184. 1997) proposed Croton subg. Julocroton (Mart.) Radcl.-Sm. & Govaerts; more recently, phylogenies by Berry & al. (in Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1520–1534. 2005) and Van Ee & al. (in Taxon 60: 791–823. 2011) based on molecular data studies, confirmed that position. The segregation proposed by Müller (l.c.) and Baillon (l.c.) between Croton and Julocroton was accepted for several years. Macbride (in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 13(3A): 57. 1951) was the first not to accept Julocroton as a distinct genus, explaining that the characteristics defining the genus were arbitrary (“unequal female sepals, sometimes glandular”) and also occurred in other Peruvian species of Croton. This proposal was followed by Webster (l.c. 1967; in Novon 2: 269–273. 1992; in Taxon 42: 793–823. 1993) justifying that the features to keep the genus Julocroton were no more distinctive than those that characterize the sections within Croton. However, the genus Julocroton continued to be accepted by other authors, such as Smith & al. (in Reitz, Fl. Santa Catarinense: Euforbiáceas. 1988), Cordeiro (in Acta Bot. Bras. 4(1): 83–90. 1990; Revis. Taxon. Julocroton: 138–151. 1994, thesis, Univ. São Paulo) and Radcliffe-Smith (Gen. Euphorbiacearum: 259. 2001). These authors recognized the similarity between the two genera, however they claimed that the characteristics that distinguished them were very striking and did not vary so much, a fact that happens within Croton sections. Since its publication in 1826, the name Croton fuscescens has been employed in different works such as regional floras, anatomical studies, ethnobotany, biochemistry, phylogenetic analysis, taxonomy, and palynology publications (e.g., Cordeiro, l.c. 1990; Webster, l.c. 1992, l.c. 1993: 816; Caruzo & Cordeiro, l.c.: 571–585; Correia & al. in Hoehnea 37: 53–69. 2010; Garcia & al. in J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 6: 29. 2010; Silva & al. in Acta Bot. Bras. 24: 441–453. 2010; de Paula & Saja in Nordic J. Bot. 29: 505–511. 2011; de Paula & al. in Pl. Syst. Evol. 292: 1–14. 2011; Van Ee & al., l.c.; Oliveira & Cordeiro in Hoehnea 43: 645–667. 2016; Soka & Lombardi in Rodriguésia 67: 001–017. 2016; Gagliardi & al. in Austral. J. Bot. 65: 538–549. 2017; Caruzo & al. in Hoehnea 46: e912018. 2019; Pimentel & al. in Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 92: 104106. 2020; Souza & al. in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 281: 104279. 2020; Pereira-Silva & al. in Biota Neotrop. 22(1): e20211223. 2022). Additionally, the species also has been recommended for ecological restoration in the state of São Paulo, Brazil (Barbosa, Lista Espéc. Restaur. Ecol. Estado São Paulo. 2017). Moraes (in Kew Bull. 66: 498. 2011) recognized Croton fuscescens as a synonym of C. gnaphaloides Schrad. (in Gött. Gel. Anz. 1821: 708. 1821), a name described based on specimens collected by Maximilian Alexander Philipp, Prinz zu Wied-Neuwied, during his expedition in Brazil, between 1815 and 1817. Schrader (l.c.) did not cite directly the specimen collected by Wied, but Moraes (l.c.) stated that the description fits perfectly with the information on the label handwritten by Wied on the specimen deposited in GOET. It is worth emphasizing that Moraes (l.c.) mentioned that the specimen deposited in GOET had been neither identified nor annotated by Schrader. Although Croton gnaphaloides has been accepted by Govaerts & al. (in World Checkl. Bibliogr. Euphorbiaceae: 455. 2000), apart from its listing as a “Species inquirendae, valde dubiae” by Müller (l.c.: 274), this name had never been mentioned in any flora, revision or taxonomic treatment of Croton and after an extensive online search, the name C. gnaphaloides was not located among herbarium collections or GenBank accessions. Some online databases now also accept this name, such as the Flora do Brasil (https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB35828), Plants of the World Online (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:342599-1), and the Encyclopedia of Life (https://eol.org/pages/1147160/names), all accessed 6 Feb 2023. Nevertheless, for the purpose of nomenclatural stability, we propose conservation of the well-known and commonly applied name Croton fuscescens, under Art. 14.2, against Croton gnaphaloides. The latter name was not used at all after its publication for nearly 175 years, and C. fuscescens or Julocroton fuscescens continue to be widely adopted in taxonomic, biochemical, and ethnobotanical studies. Any further disruptions to its nomenclatural stability will lead only to confusion. RFS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4532-8902 MBRC, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8393-214X IC, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2626-5280 OLMS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4561-5936 APNP, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4874-129X