It was rather a surprise to learn that the committee on conservation of generic names for Spermatophyta rejected Gerardia in the sense of Bentham and nearly all subsequent authors (Taxon 10: 124, 1961), particularly since the International Code itself has since 1935 given implied approval to its retention by giving in an appendix the questionable Hitchcock and Green list of proposed lectotype species for Linnaean genera. It was in unwilling deference to this list that Pennell in 1935 restored Gerardia in his “Scrophulariaceae of Eastern Temperate North America.” The two most important later references in which the genus is treated, Fernald’s 8th edition of Gray’s “Manual” (1950) and Gleason’s “New Britton & Brown Illustrated Flora” (1952) both follow Pennell in retaining Gerardia. The committee most certainly was not justified in claiming that “conservation of Gerardia Bentham is unnecessary since Agalinis Rafinesque has come into general use,” still less in saying that “presumably all necessary combinations have been made.” For those who divide the genus, at least three new names are required under Agalinis (which was approved as a nomen conservandum over Chytra); if Gleason’s broad interpretation of G. purpurea is followed, there must be several more. For those wishing to maintain a broad definition of the genus (i.e., including Aureolaria and Tomanthera as well as Agalinis), several more new varietal combinations will be needed for the Aureolaria group. The arguments for rejection of Gerardia in the sense of Bentham have been well summarized by S. F. Blake (under item 11. Rhinanthus virginicus in his discussion of the Clayton Herbarium, Rhodora 20: 66-71, 1918) and by F. W. Pennell (in his 1935 monograph, cited above; see p. 419). Now that their conclusions have belatedly received official approval, the following three names may be published. Additional synonymy and comments may be found in Pennell’s, monograph.