Echinoidea taxon details
original description
Agassiz, L. 1841. Monographies d'Échinodermes vivans et fossiles. Échinites. Famille des Clypéasteroides. 2 (Seconde Monographie). Des Scutelles. Neuchâtel, Switzerland, i-iv, 1-151, pls 1-27., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1395637 page(s): 57-58; pl. 6: figs 1-9 [details]
original description
(of Encope agassizi Michelin, 1851) Michelin, H. 1851. Description de quelques nouvelles especes d'Échinides. Revue et Magazine de Zoologie, Série 2 3, 90-93., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2320997 page(s): 90-91; pl. 2: fig. 1a-b [details]
basis of record
Mortensen, T. (1948). A Monograph of the Echinoidea. IV, 2. Clypeasteroida. Clypeasteridæ, Arachnoidæ, Fibulariidæ, Laganidæ and Scutellidæ. 471 pp., C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen. page(s): 437-438 [details]
status source
Coppard, S.E. & Lessios, H.A. (2017). Phylogeography of the sand dollar genus Encope: implications regarding the Central American Isthmus and rates of molecular evolution. <em>Scientific Reports.</em> 7(1): 11520., available online at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11875-w [details]
From editor or global species database
Fossil range Durham (1940) described possible fossil representatives of E. grandis as ancestral species/subspecies, with E. shepherdi restricted to the Late Pliocene and E. grandis inezana restricted to the Pleistocene. Morphological differentiation between E. grandis, and E. grandis inezana are very slight, and relates to small differences in the size of the marginal notches, the size of the interambulacral lunule, and the concavity of the abactinal system. Coppard & Lessios (2017) observed such characters to vary greatly in extant E. grandis and, thus, do not reliably differentiate these forms. They therefore used the Gelasian Stage of the Early Pleistocene for the minimum age of E. grandis. [details]
From editor or global species database
| |