Neofusicoccum laricinum (Sawada) Hattori & C. Nakash. inhabits Far East Asia and is the cause of shoot blight of larch (EPPO datasheets on pests recommended for regulation, https://gd.eppo. int/; Sep 2023). This species was established in 1950 by Sawada as Physalospora laricina Sawada. Although Sawada (1950) described only the sexual state, subsequent research on shoot blight revealed that the asexual state of this species, identified as Macrophoma sp., causes the disease, and elucidated its life history (Uozumi, 1961;Yokota, 1962Yokota, , 1963. Yamamoto (1961) proposed that the causal fungus P. laricina should be treated as the genus Guignardia based on the morphological characteristics of its asexual state, and a new combination should be proposed as Guignardia laricina (Sawada) W. Yamam. & Kaz. Itô. Subsequently, Shang (1987) transferred G. laricina to the genus Botryosphaeria based on the morphological characteristics of its sexual state noted by Luttrell (1973). Hattori et al. (2021) reexamined the specimens of G. laricina, including the syntype specimens of P. laricina (IUM-FS515, IUM-FS516, IUM-FS517, IUM-FS518, IUM-FS519, and IUM-FS520). In their study, a multi-locus molecular phylogenetic analysis using ITS, rpb2, tef1-α, and tub2 sequences was conducted with newly isolated strains of G. laricina to resolve taxonomic problems associated with this species. According to the results of phylogenetic analysis, B. laricina was transferred to the genus Neofusicoccum, and epitypification for the species was proposed based on their newly materials. However, the treatment failed to meet the requirements of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code; the identifier was not given (Art. F.5.4), and designation of an epitype is not effected unless the lectotype that the epitype supports is explicitly cited (Art. 9.9)). Recently, Zhao et al. (2021) proposed a lectotype based on the illustrations in Sawada (1950) despite the existence of a syntype. Due to the presence of the syntype, this proposal was also not compliant with the Code (Art. 9.12). Therefore, we propose a lectotype and an epitype compliant with the requirements of the Code.