The nomenclature of Podocarpus angustifolius Griseb. and P. aristulatus Parl., names applied to two taxonomically distinct Cuban species of Podocarpus sect. Pumilis (Podocarpaceae), is discussed. Both names are based on material collected by Charles Wright. The complexities of typifying names based on this collector's material are summarised, emphasising that material bearing the same Wright number cannot always be considered duplicate type material, Wright's numbers being distribution not collection numbers. In this particular case, the dioecy of Podocarpus further complicates matters because the original material of P. angustifolius at GOET, formerly regarded as a holotype, consists of two shoots of different sexes, plus detached seeds that are more mature than those on the mounted female shoot. We demonstrate that these three elements all have different provenances and must be regarded as syntypes. The name Podocarpus angustifolius Griseb. is lectotypified by the detached seeds at GOET, and a supporting epitype designated to fix the application of the name. Podocarpus aristulatus Parl. was based partly on the type of the earlier name P. angustifolius Griseb. of which Parlatore was unaware. However, Parlatore did not see all syntypes present in Grisebach's original material of that name; moreover his name P. aristulatus has been consistently applied to a taxonomically different entity from eastern Cuba, rather than western Cuba where the lectotype of Podocarpus angustifolius was collected. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability it is recommended that P. aristulatus be either lectotypified or conserved with a new conserved type. The latter option is favoured and a separate proposal to that effect is being published simultaneously.