Abstract
While identifying a species of Amorphophallus Blume ex Decaisne (1834: 366), nom. cons. collected from the Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh, India, the authors came across the protologue of Amorphophallus candidissimus X.Gong & H.Li (2012: 201) described from Vietnam, but it was not validly published, as two different collections (leaf and inflorescence) collected in two different dates were indicated as “holotype” in contrary to Art. 8.1 and 40.2 (see Ex. 1) of the Melbourne Code (McNeill et al. 2012). Hence, the name A. candidissimus is validated here by designating a single collection (flowering material) as a holotype. The other collection (leaf material) is considered as a paratype, as it also depicts one of the diagnostic characters (lamina lacking bulbils) of the species.