Abstract
Arguments presented by Kraft & Saunders [Phycologia 39: 258–261 (2000)] against the use of the name Cryptonemiales Schmitz (1892) and in favour of the name Halymeniales Saunders & Kraft (1996) are rejected on the basis that their preferred usage represents a return to the ‘circumscription method’ of nomenclature, which was considered unworkable and thus replaced with the type method by the Fifth International Botanical Congress (Cambridge, UK, 1930).