A commentary is given on the criticism of Dahlgren's recent classification of angiosperms by Corner (Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 82:81–87 (1981)). In his dissatisfaction with the current, (almost) generally accepted nomenclatural concepts he has chosen to use my classification as a target. It is agreed that nomenclature is not ‘fair’ to plant groups playing the most important role in building up the biosphere, and that nomenclatural constructions do not reflect the consideration given to various parts of the plant. Corner does not seem to be familiar with the fact that his so‐called ‘pseudons’ are common to all current systems of classification, nor that the termination ‘‐florae’ has been used by Thorne (1968) and in a number of publications since. This suffix does not imply that the botanists using it neglect vegetative characters, nor characters from fruits and seeds. Other misunderstandings are also pointed out. In no case has it been satisfactorily demonstrated by Corner that my orders or superorders are unnatural entities (even though a number of them