Abstract:Through herbarium and literature surveys, we found that when Liu (in Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 77(2): 72. 1989) reduced Ligularia angustiligulata C. C. Chang to the synonymy under L. lamarum (Diels) C. C. Chang, he did not check any authentic type material of the former name, i.e. H. T. Tsai 58004 (LBG, PE). The specimens he checked, including two sheets at KUN and one sheet at SZ, albeit also numbered H. T. Tsai 58004 and with the exactly same collection information as the two Tsai specimens at LBG and PE, are in conflict with the protologue in some important characters and thus do not belong to the type collection of L. angustiligulata. These three sheets are clearly referable to L. lamarum. The sheet at PE agrees perfectly with the protologue of L. angustiligulata and is the only specimen bearing the name “L. angustiligulata” in C. C. Chang’s hand, and undoubtedly is the holotype of this name. The sheet at LBG also fits perfectly the protologue of L. angustiligulata and is thus an isotype of the name. We determined that L. angustiligulata is not essentially different from L. phyllocolea Hand.-Mazz. and should be placed in synonymy under the latter. In addition, we found the type material of L. longipes C. C. Chang to be different from L. phyllocolea in some important characters. Further studies are thus needed to determine the identity of L. longipes, which is currently placed in synonymy under L. phyllocolea.