It is to be hoped, that the genus Pandanophyllum Hassk. never will revive, for it is based on a bad generic description and two nomina nuda, P. palustre Hassk. (Harassas tjaai) and P. humile Hassk., the first of which is supposed to indicate Mapania palustris (Steud.) Vill., while the other name has brought about much confusion, as it has been used for Hypolytrum humile (Steud.) Boeck. as well as for Mapania humilis (Miq., partly) Vill. The first validly published description of Pandanophyllum humile Hassk. nomen nudum in Cat. PI. Hort. Bot. Bog. 1844, p. 297 has been given by Steudel in his Synopsis II (1855), p. 134 and is based upon a specimen collected in Java by Zollinger (n. 1511, Brit. Mus., Paris), belonging to the genus Hypolytrum. So this is the type-specimen of H. humile (Steud.) Boeck. in LInnaea XXXVII (1871 —1873), p. 128. Bentham and Hooker, however, accepting the interpretation of Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. of Bengal XXXVIII, part 2 (1869), p. 82 and the revised opinion of Miquel in his III. FI. Arch. Ind. (1871), p. 61, included both species in their section Pandanophyllum of Mapania (Gen. PI. Ill, 1883, p. 1056). A quarter of a century later C. B. Clarke divided Benth. and Hooker’s section into two subgenera, viz. Pandanophyllum, including Mapania humilis Vill. and Halostemma (Wall.), including Mapania palustris (Steud.) Vill. Consequently our present section Pandanophyllum sensu Clarke probably excludes both species, which originally belonged to It. One might be inclined to rectify the mistake by changing the name of Halostemma into Pandanophyllum and coining a new name for the other subgenus, but the principal difficulty, caused by the ambiguity of Hasskarl’s generic description can not be solved in this manner. This description calls for a bifid style (perhaps referring to Hypolytrum humile Boeck.) and 3—j spikelets (not appropriate to Mapania palustris Vill., highly improbable as to Mapania humilis Vill. and Hypolytrum humile Boeck.). The only way out of the difficulty is to reject the name Pandanophyllum as a nomen dubium in the sense of the rules of nomenclature (art. 63) and to rename the subgenus Pandanophyllum Benth. et Hook., sensu Clarke. I propose the name Pandanoscirpus.