Recent phylogenetic studies have suggested that the monotypic Fokienia A.Henry & H.H.Thomas is nested within Chamaecyparis Spach, which is in agreement with separate morphological studies. Here the authors confirm a previous taxonomic treatment that incorporated Fokienia hodginsii (Dunn) A.Henry & H.H.Thomas into Chamaecyparis based on the monophyly requirement of taxonomy, i.e. Chamaecyparis hodginsii (Dunn) Rushforth. In addition, the type collection of the basionym Cupressus hodginsii Dunn was found to contain three sheets of specimens, one in K including a vegetative branch (K000088294) and a separate ovulate cone (K001090486), a second one in A (A00022477), and a third one in IBSC (IBSC0016081). All three specimens are marked with Hongkong Herbarium No. 3505, but only the two specimens in K and IBSC possess similar handwriting of “Cupressus hodginsii Dunn”. The two specimens should be considered as syntypes according to the Shenzhen Code. The specimen in K is better preserved but it is a mixture according to the collection label: cones from Foochow (Fuzhou) and foliage from Yenping (Nanping). We lectotypified the name Cupressus hodginsii with K000088294 because the specimen is well preserved and has enough characters for identification. Moreover, an ovulate cone (K001090486) is on the same sheet.