A nomenclatural and taxonomic review of the names and new combination published between 1886 and 1931 in Kalanchoe (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae) by British botanist Nicholas Edward Brown (1849 - 1934) Author Smith, Gideon F. text Phytotaxa 2023 2023-12-21 630 4 266 280 https://phytotaxa.mapress.com/pt/article/download/phytotaxa.630.4.2/51381 journal article 10.11646/phytotaxa.630.4.2 1179-3163 10417649 3. Kalanchoe kirkii Brown (1902b: 110) . Type :—[“Some part of AFRICA”], without more precise locality information, introduced [to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew] by the “Hon. H. W. Fitzwilliam of Wentworth, Woodhouse, Rotherham , in 1893”, specimen prepared on 19 April 1901 , presumably as N.E. Brown s.n . ( lectotype , K barcode K000739531 [image available at http://specimens.kew. org/herbarium/K000739531]!), here designated . Taxonomic notes :—At present the name K. kirkii is treated as a synonym of K. lateritia Engler (1894: 19) (see also Engler 1895: 189 ) ( Fig. 1D ). Nomenclatural notes :— Wickens (1987: 46) lists a “Fitzwilliam” specimen held at Herb. K as the “holo”. However, Brown (1902b: 110–111) did not cite any material when he described the species, and there is no indication that Brown (1902b: 110) used only the lectotype designated here, N.E. Brown s.n ., barcode K000739531, when publishing the name (Turland et al . 2028: Art. 9.1( b )). The name K. kirkii therefore does not have a holotype . The sentiment that the name K. kirkii has a “ holotype ” was echoed on a determinavit label attached to the Herb. K specimen, K000739531, but this action has no standing ( Turland et al . 2018 : Art. 7.10) and is not correct. Since the Herb. K specimen, K000739531, was distinctly not prepared by Fitzwilliam, who rather is credited as having introduced the material to Kew from “[s]ome part of Africa” in 1893, eight years before the specimen was prepared, and to prevent further confusion, the name K. kirkii is here lectotypified on N.E. Brown s.n ., barcode K000739531, which may or may not have been the specimen Wickens (1987: 46) had in mind. Spirit material of K. kirkii also exists at Herb. K, databased at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/12169.000, but an image of the material is not accessible online. Fernandes (1983: 49) only stated that the type is “[…] a cultivated plant at Kew Garden […]”, which was not an effective typification.