The name Acidosasa was proposed by Chu & Chao in 1979 for a new monosp
ecific genus, with A. chinensis as type, but neither name was validly
published because two ''type'' specimens were cited for A. chinensis.
In 1991, the same authors designated a lectotype for A. chinensis. Mea
nwhile, Keng in 1982 had fulfilled the requirements for valid publicat
ion by designating a single specimen as the type, which is the same as
the later ''lectotype''. Thanks to Keng's early validation the nomenc
latural repercussions of the original fault are minimal, with but a si
ngle species having to change its currently accepted name.