Iris Cohen schreef
For those of you who are not professional botanists, you may be interested
to know that Tylecodon is an anagram of Cotyledon, which is the genus it was
split off from. Botanists somtimes use this little trick when describing a
new genus.
Iris

+ + +
Happens often (Tecoma and Cotema, Albizia and Balizia, etc).
It is a device to help remember and place a new genus.
Another form is to add a prefix (Neo-, Para-, Pseudo-, Notho- etc, etc) or a
ending (like -opsis). The fun starts when such genera prove to be not
closely related (Tsuga and Pseudotsuga) or even belong to different
families (Cedrela and Cedrelopsis)!

By the way what may be even less obvious to "not professional botanists" is
that Cotyledon is a technical plant term used in morphology and thus is
potentially confusing. Using such a technical plant term as the name of a
genus is therefore not allowed for new names (after 31 December 1911. Art
20.2). Encountering such a name means that it is a fairly old name, in this
case by Linnaeus (actually Tournefort, but he does not count).

In a sense it is comparable to Latin cultivar epithets. New cultivar
epithets in Latin can not be published since 1 January 1959 (17.9).
Encountering a Latin cultivar epithet means encountering a cultivar of
decades old (unless it is an existing personal or geographic name, or if it
used to be a species or infraspecific taxon sensu ICBN).
PvR