| About | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Specimens | | Distribution | | Checklist | | Stats | | Log in |
Polychaeta taxon detailsListriolobus Fischer, 1926 [not Spengel, 1912]
264917 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:264917)
accepted
Genus
Listriolobus bahamensis Fischer, 1926 (type by subsequent designation)
marine,
recent only
masculine
Fischer, W. (1926). Sipunculiden und Echiuriden der Hamburger Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1909. <em>Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg.</em> 42: 104–117.
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author...
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author of the genus. This would not be possible. Nishikawa (2004) examined the situation. He stated that, although Spengel (1912) failed to make a type designation and did not assign any nominal species to the new genus, this does not make the genus a nomen nudum since proposed before 1931. Spengel gave a definition of the genus, and this was sufficient at the time. However, this is a little doubtful as it seems Listriolobus was applied to a misidentification of Thalassema erythrogrammon. It seems Spengel was NOT transferring T. erythrogrammon to the new genus, thus there was no species for the genus. This is not possible. Fischer (1926) must be the author of the genus (in addition he stated he was). [details]
Polychaeta (2021). Listriolobus Fischer, 1926 [not Spengel, 1912]. Accessed at: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=264917 on 2024-04-19
Date action by
original description
Fischer, W. (1926). Sipunculiden und Echiuriden der Hamburger Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1909. <em>Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg.</em> 42: 104–117.
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details] taxonomy source Nishikawa, Teruaki. (2004). Synonymy of the West-Pacific echiuran Listriolobus sorbillans (Echiura: Echiuridae), with taxonomic notes towards a generic revision. <em>Species Diversity.</em> 9(2): 109–123., available online at http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006794426/en [details] Available for editors  [request] basis of record van der Land, J. (ed). (2008). UNESCO-IOC Register of Marine Organisms (URMO). , available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/urmo/ [details] additional source Fisher, W. K. (1949). Additions to the echiuroid fauna of the North Pacific Ocean. <em>Proceedings of the United States National Museum.</em> 99(3248): 479–497, plates 28–34., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7728303 note: Emendation (re-diagnosis of genus) [details] additional source Murina, Vantsetti. List of Echiura. [details] additional source Satô, H. (1939). Studies on the Echiuroidea, Sipunculoidea and Priapuloidea of Japan. <em>Science Reports of the Tôhoku Imperial University, Fourth Series, Biology.</em> 14 (4): 339–460, plates XIX–XXIII. [details] subsequent type designation Fisher, W. K. (1946). Echiuroid worms of the North Pacific Ocean. <em>Proceedings of the United States National Museum.</em> 96: 215–292, plates 20–37., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7311441 [details] From editor or global species database
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author of the genus. This would not be possible. Nishikawa (2004) examined the situation. He stated that, although Spengel (1912) failed to make a type designation and did not assign any nominal species to the new genus, this does not make the genus a nomen nudum since proposed before 1931. Spengel gave a definition of the genus, and this was sufficient at the time. However, this is a little doubtful as it seems Listriolobus was applied to a misidentification of Thalassema erythrogrammon. It seems Spengel was NOT transferring T. erythrogrammon to the new genus, thus there was no species for the genus. This is not possible. Fischer (1926) must be the author of the genus (in addition he stated he was). [details]
|