WoRMS name details

Ophioscolex (Ophiolycus) farquhari McKnight, 2003

242139  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:242139)

 unaccepted (raised to genus rank)
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
McKnight, D.G. (2003). New brittle-stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from New Zealand waters. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 352: 1-36., available online at http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2003f/z00352f.pdf [details]   
Taxonomy Ophiolycus is currently a sugenus, although McKnight did not agree, when he described this species. He did not revise the...  
Taxonomy Ophiolycus is currently a sugenus, although McKnight did not agree, when he described this species. He did not revise the status of the genus though. [details]
Stöhr, S.; O’Hara, T.; Thuy, B. (Eds) (2024). World Ophiuroidea Database. Ophioscolex (Ophiolycus) farquhari McKnight, 2003. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=242139 on 2024-04-24
Date
action
by
2007-07-05 21:51:50Z
created
2007-07-18 12:17:12Z
checked
2009-06-26 07:24:59Z
changed
2011-05-10 07:38:31Z
changed

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


original description McKnight, D.G. (2003). New brittle-stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from New Zealand waters. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 352: 1-36., available online at http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2003f/z00352f.pdf [details]   

additional source Mah, C.L.; McKnight, D.G.; Eagle, M.K.; Pawson, D.L.; Améziane, N.; Vance, D.J.; Baker, A.N.; Clark, H.E.S.; Davey, N. (2009). Phylum Echinodermata: sea stars, brittle stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea lilies. In: Gordon, D.P. (Ed.) (2009). New Zealand inventory of biodiversity: 1. Kingdom Animalia: Radiata, Lophotrochozoa, Deuterostomia. pp. 371-400. [details]   
 
 Present  Present in aphia/obis/gbif/idigbio   Inaccurate  Introduced: alien  Containing type locality 
   

From editor or global species database
Taxonomy Ophiolycus is currently a sugenus, although McKnight did not agree, when he described this species. He did not revise the status of the genus though. [details]