A neotype designation for Helvella fusca proposed in 1997 proves to have been erroneous because an illustration accompanying the original description was overlooked. Such illustrations normally have served as the lectotype when all known specimens of the author's taxon have been lost. The authors of that neotype designation should instead have designated the illustration as a lectotype and a specimen as an epitype, which is done in this paper. The so-called neotype specimen is now selected as the epitype specimen. A full description, illustrations and remarks about synonyms and a non-synonym are also provided.