The genus Gloeothece is an important representative of unicellular colonial Cyanophyta, widely distributed worldwide, mainly in subaerophytic habitats such as wet rocks. It was described more than 160 years ago by Nageli (l.c.), and about 50 species with several infraspecific taxa were described later. They are commonly distributed in many countries, frequently mentioned in literature, and the recognition of this genus was confirmed by molecular methods (Castenholz in Boone & Castenholz, Bergey’s Manual, ed. 2, 1: 502–503. 2001; our results in prep.). Several species exist and are frequently referred to in many taxonomic, floristic and ecological papers, and surveys of the genus are included in all relevant world monographs, e.g., in Geitler (Cyanophyceae: 209–222. 1932), Jaag (Untersuch. Veg. Biol. Algen Alpen: 532. 1941), Starmach (Cyanophyta Sinice: 125–130. 1966) and Komarek & Anagnostidis (Cyanoprokaryota, 1. Teil: Chroococcales: 92–101. 1998) from Central Europe; Elenkin (Monogr. Alg. Cyanophycearum Aquidulcium: 243–257. 1938) and Hollerbach & al. (Opredelitel Sinezelenye Vodorosli: 109–113. 1953) from Russia; Desikachary (Cyanophyta: 124–130. 1959) from India; Hirose & Yamagishi (Ill. Jap. Freshw. Algae: 37–39. 1981) from Japan; Prescott (Algae W. Gr. Lakes Area: 461–462. 1951); and Wehr & Sheath (Freshw. Algae N. Amer.: 75–80. 2003) from North America, etc. However, as recently recognized (Mares & al. in Cryptog. Algol. 34: 255–262. 2013), the explicitly designated type of the generic name Gloeothece by Nageli (l.c.), Gloeothece linearis (type specimen from Zug, Switzerland, ZT), does not correspond to the commonly accepted concept of the genus Gloeothece used by all later authors, and included in the above-mentioned monographs. Its holotype was shown to contain a dominant component of well-preserved cyanobacterial cells, showing typical characters (cell shape and size, distinct polar granules, mucilaginous envelopes) morphologically identical to the genus Gloeobacter in the current concept (Mares & al. in PLoS ONE 8: e66323. 2013), and probably also to the species Gloeobacter violaceus (see Mares & al. in Cryptog. Algol. 34: fig. 1. 2013). Consequently, Gloeobacter violaceus has been proposed for conservation against several putative synonyms, including Gloeothece linearis, to maintain the stability of the cyanobacterial system, and for other practical reasons (Mares & al. in Taxon 62: 1055. 2013). Gloeobacter violaceus is an important model organism, frequently used as an example of a cyanobacterium without thylakoids in numerous experimental studies, as the most common outgroup strain in phylogenetic trees of Cyanophyta, etc. Accordingly, we propose the conservation of the name Gloeothece with a new type, Gloeothece fuscolutea Nageli, allowing its use in the traditional sense, rejecting the originally designated type, Gloeothece linearis. The new proposed type, Gloeothece fuscolutea, was also described by Nageli (1849) in the same paper in which he published his new genus Gloeothece. The type specimen of G. fuscolutea (Zurich, an nassen Felsen, L0055243) was checked by us using light microscopy, and its morphology was found to match exactly the original description, and to show all diacritical features of the genus Gloeothece as understood by modern authors (Fig. 1). By this proposal, the commonly used and widely accepted concept of the genus Gloeothece would be preserved. If this proposal was rejected, the name Gloeothece would replace the monotypic but widely used Gloeobacter and the numerous taxa now included in Gloeothece would remain without a genus name. Mares & al. • (2195) Conserve Gloeothece