Currently subfamily Dasyoideae of Delesseriaceae, refer AlgaeBase (2021 version). [details]
From AlgaeBase, 2021 version: According to A.B. Doweld (International Fossil Plant Name Index), in an e-mail dated ... [details]
Junior homonym of Baileya W.H. Harvey & A. Gray ex J. Torrey in W.H. Emory, 1848 Magnoliopsida: Asteraceae) and ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: type illegitimate; intended combination of Conferva vesicata C. Agardh 1812 (illeg.), a superfluous ... [details]
An emendation (attempted correction) of Carrodorus S.F. Gray, 1821, the latter listed as a nom. rejic. in ... [details]
Traditionally assigned to Xanthophyceae, however assigned to Synurophyceae (=Chrysophyceae in IRMNG) in AlgaeBase, ... [details]
Originally published as Chrysomerophycea [sic]; orthography corrected to Chrysomeridophyceae by Graf et al., 2020. [details]
A junior homonym of Cometes Linnaeus, 1767 (Caryophyllaceae), but no replacement name currently known. From ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: "nom. illeg. (ICBN Art. 52.1 & 52.2(b)); objectively invalid (ICZN Glossary under 'name: invalid ... [details]
Listed as Cyanophyta? in Index Nominum Algarum. Replacement name for Elaeococcus Thiessen, preoccupied by ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: Treated as [a validly published name] by Athansiadis (2016: 538). It is not included in ING or INA. ... [details]
A nomen illegitimum according to AlgaeBase, 2021 version. Listed as a nomen nudum in Index Nominum Algarum. Type ... [details]
Invalid genus since the single included species is invalid (no type designated) (AlgaeBase). [details]
Listed in Eremosphaeraceae in AlgaeBase, 2021, however that family currently treated as a synonym of Oocystaceae in ... [details]
Replacement name for Bicornis Fenner, 1994, nom. inval. (coincides with a Latin technical term in use in morphology ... [details]
From AlgaeBase, 2021 version: Invalid: type species is invalid. [details]
From AlgaeBase: This species has previously been placed in the Chaetophoraceae [i.e., Chlorophyta], but O'Kelly ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: Komárek & Fott (1983) suggest that this alga may be assignable to Chlorolunula P. Dangeard; if so, ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: This name is allegedly necessary because the original name (Tertiarius H. Håkansson & G. ... [details]
Included in Dictyochophyceae in Ruggiero et al., 2015, but accepted in AlgaeBase (2021 version). [details]
Treated as a chrysophyte at this time, following AlgaeBase/Kristiansen & Preisig, 2001, although Ekelund & ... [details]
Listed in Chrysosphaeraceae (Chrysophyceae) in AlgaeBase, 2021 version (basis not stated), although from other ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: This name is allegedly necessary because the original name (Corona Lefébure & Chenevière) ... [details]
AlgaeBase, 2021 lists the type species, Phythelios viridis Frenzel 1891, as a synonym of Golenkinia in ... [details]
Originally placed in Cryptophyceae (Cryptomonadales), Pleuromastix is treated as Protista incertae sedis in Adl et ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: Invalid: not effectively published; apparently unpublished manuscript by Nakahara, M., Tsubota, H., ... [details]
Accepted as Pyrocystaceae subfamily Pyrophacoideae in AlgaeBase (2021 version). [details]
Originally described as a silicoflagellate, but treated as a diatom in most recent sources. [details]
The type genus Rocella Hanna was originally described as a silicoflagellate, but is considered to be a diatom in ... [details]
Listed as Pyramimonadophyceae in AlgaeBase, acritarch in Acritax (https://www.mikrotax.org/Acritax/). [details]
The family name is illegitimate, based on Sphaerodictyon C.-C. Jao, 1978, a later homonym of Sphaerodictyon ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: Illegitimate: later homonym of Sphaerodictyon Geitler, 1925 [Cyanophyceae]. ... [The] genus ... [details]
Treated in AlgaeBase, 2021 as as subfamily Spyridioideae of Callithamniaceae, although some other recent sources ... [details]
From AlgaeBase: Not included in ING, but may have been validated by indirect reference to Eunotia cistula Ehrenberg ... [details]
The generitype is invalid according to AlgaeBase, 2021 version. [details]
From AlgaeBase: Invalid according to Gottschling & Socher (2013: 128, "ICN Art. 36.1b"). [details]
Family proposed as a "nom. prov". by E.J. Cox, 2015, thus invalid, however in use in AlgaeBase (2021 version) and ... [details]
This name is listed in AlgaeBase (2021 version) but is untraced elsewhere e.g. Index Nominum Genericorum, Index ... [details]