| Introduction | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Taxon match | | Checklist | | Literature | | Stats | | Photogallery | | OBIS Vocab | | Log in |
CaRMS taxon detailsEuclymene Verrill, 1900
129347 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:129347)
accepted
Genus
marine,
recent only
feminine
Verrill, A.E. 1900. Additions to the Turbellaria, Nemertina, and Annelida of the Bermudas, with revisions of some New England genera and species. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10(2): 595-671., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27731368
page(s): 654 [details] Available for editors  (of ) Lamarck, J.B. (1818). [volume 5 of] Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, préséntant les caractères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des principales espèces qui s'y rapportent; precedes d'une Introduction offrant la determination des caracteres essentiels de l'Animal, sa distinction du vegetal et desautres corps naturels, enfin, l'Exposition des Principes fondamentaux de la Zoologie. <em>Paris, Deterville.</em> vol 5: 612 pp., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879 page(s): 339-341 [details]
Note Verrill (1900: 654) replaced Clymene Lamarck...
From editor or global species database
Type species Verrill (1900: 654) replaced Clymene Lamarck (he used Savigny as author) with nomen novum Euclymene because of a possible junior homonymy, and Verrill stated the type was now Clymene oerstedii Claparède, 1863 [instead of Lamarck's species]. The Hartman Catalogue and Fauchald, 1977 repeat this. However, under the current code (article 67.8) this is clearly not possible. The type remains Clymene amphistoma Lamarck, by monotypy. For obvious reasons of maintaining stability a species described forty years later cannot possibly be the type, which must be a species originally included in the original genus so that the original author's concept is maintained. Subsequent statements such as Verrill's in reassigning the type of a genus to another species have no effect. [details]
Homonymy Verrill (1900: 654) replaced Clymene Lamarck (he used Savigny as author) with nomen novum Euclymene because of a possible...
Homonymy Verrill (1900: 654) replaced Clymene Lamarck (he used Savigny as author) with nomen novum Euclymene because of a possible junior homonymy (see Clymene for details) although a case can be made that this was unnecessary [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2021). World Polychaeta Database. Euclymene Verrill, 1900. Accessed through: Nozères, C., Kennedy, M.K. (Eds.) (2021) Canadian Register of Marine Species at: http://www.marinespecies.org/CaRMS/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=129347 on 2024-04-24
Nozères, C., Kennedy, M.K. (Eds.) (2024). Canadian Register of Marine Species. Euclymene Verrill, 1900. Accessed at: https://marinespecies.org/carms/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=129347 on 2024-04-24
Date action by
original description
Verrill, A.E. 1900. Additions to the Turbellaria, Nemertina, and Annelida of the Bermudas, with revisions of some New England genera and species. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10(2): 595-671., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27731368
page(s): 654 [details] Available for editors original description (of ) Lamarck, J.B. (1818). [volume 5 of] Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, préséntant les caractères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des principales espèces qui s'y rapportent; precedes d'une Introduction offrant la determination des caracteres essentiels de l'Animal, sa distinction du vegetal et desautres corps naturels, enfin, l'Exposition des Principes fondamentaux de la Zoologie. <em>Paris, Deterville.</em> vol 5: 612 pp., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879 page(s): 339-341 [details] additional source Fauchald, K. (1977). The polychaete worms, definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. <em>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Los Angeles, CA (USA), Science Series.</em> 28:1-188., available online at http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/123110.pdf [details] additional source Bellan, G. (2001). Polychaeta, <i>in</i>: Costello, M.J. <i>et al.</i> (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. <em>Collection Patrimoines Naturels.</em> 50: 214-231. (look up in IMIS) [details] additional source Day, J. H. (1967). [Sedentaria] A monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa. Part 2. Sedentaria. British Museum (Natural History), London. pp. 459–842., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/8596 [details]  Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Classification Verrill (1900) included Praxillella Verrill, 1882, type species P. gracilis (Sars), as a subgenus in Euclymene, with the possibility that "Praxillella should include the entire genus as being the earliest tenable name." This seems to mean that Verrill considered Praxillella to be equivalent to his new name Euclymene, and possibly to Clymene, since Euclymene was erected to replace Clymene. Thus, the new name he has just erected was probably superfuous. However Arwidsson (1906) uses Euclymene, and has Praxillella as a separate genus [details]Homonymy Verrill (1900: 654) replaced Clymene Lamarck (he used Savigny as author) with nomen novum Euclymene because of a possible junior homonymy (see Clymene for details) although a case can be made that this was unnecessary [details] Type species Verrill (1900: 654) replaced Clymene Lamarck (he used Savigny as author) with nomen novum Euclymene because of a possible junior homonymy, and Verrill stated the type was now Clymene oerstedii Claparède, 1863 [instead of Lamarck's species]. The Hartman Catalogue and Fauchald, 1977 repeat this. However, under the current code (article 67.8) this is clearly not possible. The type remains Clymene amphistoma Lamarck, by monotypy. For obvious reasons of maintaining stability a species described forty years later cannot possibly be the type, which must be a species originally included in the original genus so that the original author's concept is maintained. Subsequent statements such as Verrill's in reassigning the type of a genus to another species have no effect. [details] |