WoRMS name details

Carterispongia

1053041  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1053041)

 unaccepted (misspelling of genus name)
Genus

Species Carterispongia clathrata (Carter, 1881) accepted as Carteriospongia clathrata (Carter, 1881) accepted as Hyattella intestinalis (Lamarck, 1814) (misspelling of genus name)
Species Carterispongia foliascens (Pallas, 1766) accepted as Carteriospongia foliascens (Pallas, 1766) (misspelling of genus name)
Species Carterispongia mantelli (Bowerbank, 1874) accepted as Carteriospongia foliascens (Pallas, 1766) (genus transfer and misspelling of genus name and junior synonym)
Species Carterispongia otahitica (Esper, 1794) accepted as Carteriospongia foliascens (Pallas, 1766) (genus transfer and misspelling of genus name and junior synonym)
Species Carterispongia pennatula sensu Ridley, 1884 accepted as Carteriospongia pennatula sensu Ridley, 1884 (misspelling of genus name)
Species Carterispongia vermicularis (Lendenfeld, 1889) accepted as Carteriospongia vermicularis (Lendenfeld, 1889) (misspelling of genus name)
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
feminine
(of Carteriospongia Hyatt, 1877) Hyatt, A. (1877). Revision of the North American Poriferae; with Remarks upon Foreign Species. Part II. <em>Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History.</em> 2: 481-554, pls XV-XVII.
page(s): 540-541 [details]  OpenAccess publication 
Nomenclature Ridley (1884), p. 385, adopted Hyatt's (1877) genus Carteriospongia but changed the spelling to Carterispongia without...  
Nomenclature Ridley (1884), p. 385, adopted Hyatt's (1877) genus Carteriospongia but changed the spelling to Carterispongia without explanation. It appears to have been done on purpose because he quotes Hyatt's original spelling correctly. Apparently he was of the opinion that the extra 'o' in the name was redundant. However, this emendation is not allowed as it does not occur in the list of justified emendations of ICZN art. 32.5. Lendenfeld (1889) and Burton (1934) followed Ridley's spelling, but since then the name was used in its original spelling of Hyatt. Thus, there is no prevailing usage We do not here separately explain with each species assigned to the misspelled genus name why these combinations are unaccepted. [details]
Van Soest, R.W.M.; Boury-Esnault, N.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Rützler, K.; de Voogd, N.J.; Alvarez, B.; Hajdu, E.; Pisera, A.B.; Manconi, R.; Schönberg, C.; Klautau, M.; Kelly, M.; Vacelet, J.; Dohrmann, M.; Díaz, M.-C.; Cárdenas, P.; Carballo, J.L.; Ríos, P.; Downey, R.; Morrow, C.C. (2019). World Porifera Database. Carterispongia. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1053041 on 2019-11-20
Date
action
by
2018-01-01 14:29:21Z
created

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


original description  (of Carteriospongia Hyatt, 1877) Hyatt, A. (1877). Revision of the North American Poriferae; with Remarks upon Foreign Species. Part II. <em>Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History.</em> 2: 481-554, pls XV-XVII.
page(s): 540-541 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

basis of record Ridley, S.O. (1884). Spongiida. <em>Report on the Zoological Collections made in the Indo-Pacific Ocean during the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Alert', 1881-2. (British Museum (Natural History): London).</em> 366-482, pls 39-43; 582-630, pls 53-54.
page(s): 694 [details]  OpenAccess publication 
From editor or global species database
Nomenclature Ridley (1884), p. 385, adopted Hyatt's (1877) genus Carteriospongia but changed the spelling to Carterispongia without explanation. It appears to have been done on purpose because he quotes Hyatt's original spelling correctly. Apparently he was of the opinion that the extra 'o' in the name was redundant. However, this emendation is not allowed as it does not occur in the list of justified emendations of ICZN art. 32.5. Lendenfeld (1889) and Burton (1934) followed Ridley's spelling, but since then the name was used in its original spelling of Hyatt. Thus, there is no prevailing usage We do not here separately explain with each species assigned to the misspelled genus name why these combinations are unaccepted. [details]