The validity of Cypripedium franchetti, as described by E. H. Wilson in 1912, and subsequent typification by P. Cribb in 1997 are discussed. We conclude that Wilson's description is valid, but that the material cited by Cribb was not part of the original material and, therefore, that his usage of the term holotype cannot be construed as an error for a lectotype or epitype. We therefore propose a lectotype based on the photographic illustration within the protologue, which is part of the original material, and an epitype based on a herbarium specimen collected by Wilson in 1907.