About | Search taxa | Taxon tree | Search literature | Specimens | Distribution | Checklist | Stats | Log in

Polychaeta name details

Eumolpe Oken, 1807

324791  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:324791)

 unaccepted (nomen oblitum in relation to Lepidonotus, nomen protectum)
Genus
Species Eumolpe longissima Blainville, 1828

Species Eumolpe picta Oken in Gervais, 1849 (nomen dubium, disused name)

Species Eumolpe maxima [Oken misspelling of 'maxillosa'] accepted as Polyodontes maxillosus (Ranzani, 1817) (misspelled superseded subsequent combination)
Species Eumolpe muricata (Lamarck, 1818) accepted as Iphione muricata (Lamarck, 1818) (superseded recombination)
Species Eumolpe squamata Blainville, 1828 accepted as Lepidonotus clava (Montagu, 1808) (subjective synonym)
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
feminine
Oken, Lorenz. (1807). Stud. den 23 Julius 1807 [Meeting report of the Academy]. <em>Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen unter der Aufsicht der königlichen Gesellschaft zu Wissenschaften.</em> 2 (117): 1161-1168., available online at http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?PPN319721507_1807
page(s): 1168; note: introduces 'Eumolpe' for 'Aphrodite squammata' [sic] [details]  OpenAccess publication 
Etymology Not stated. Eumolpe is a personal female name used in Greek mythology. She was one of the Nereides, daughters of Nereus and...  
Etymology Not stated. Eumolpe is a personal female name used in Greek mythology. She was one of the Nereides, daughters of Nereus and Doris [details]

Homonymy There is no homonymy within Animalia. Nomenclature Zoologicus lists Eumolpe Gistl [sic for Gistel], 1848 as a homonym to...  
Homonymy There is no homonymy within Animalia. Nomenclature Zoologicus lists Eumolpe Gistl [sic for Gistel], 1848 as a homonym to Eumolpe Oken, 1807, but this is an incorrect assumption. The usage in Gistel [a school textbook], p. 163 is a simple mention in text flow of an existing name. In Plantae there is Eumolpe Decaisne ex Jacques & Hérincq, 1850 in Gesneriaceae [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2021). World Polychaeta Database. Eumolpe Oken, 1807. Accessed at: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=324791 on 2021-04-23
Date
action
by
2008-03-05 14:39:51Z
created
2008-03-26 11:36:43Z
changed
2018-01-10 00:50:06Z
changed

original description Oken, Lorenz. (1807). Stud. den 23 Julius 1807 [Meeting report of the Academy]. <em>Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen unter der Aufsicht der königlichen Gesellschaft zu Wissenschaften.</em> 2 (117): 1161-1168., available online at http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?PPN319721507_1807
page(s): 1168; note: introduces 'Eumolpe' for 'Aphrodite squammata' [sic] [details]  OpenAccess publication 

taxonomy source Blainville, H. M. D de [Henri Marie Ducrotay]. (1828). Mollusques, Vers et Zoophytes <b>[entries in VEA-VERS, volume 57]</b>. <em>In: Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles, dans lequel on traite methodiquement des differens etres de la nature, consideres soit en eux-memes. d'apres l'etat actuel de nos connais sciences, soit relativement a l'utilite qu'en peuvent retirer la medicine, l'agriculture, le commerce et les arts. Suive d'une biographie des plus celebres naturalistes.</em> vol. 57 [Tome LVII. Vea - Vers] F.G. Levrault, Strasbourg & Paris., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25316522
page(s): 457-460; note: extensive notes and several species included under the genus [details]   

additional source Gistel, Johannes [Nepomuk Franz Xaver]. (1848). Naturgeschichte des Tierreichs: für höhere Schulen. <em>[text book].</em> 1-216, i-xvi, Plates 1-32. Stuttgart. Scheitlin & Krais., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/175526
page(s): 163; note: Mention in text flow, misinterpreted in Nomenclator zoologicus as a new name [details]   

source of synonymy Parapar, Julio; Moreira, Juan; Núñez, Jorge; Barnich, Ruth; Brito, M. del Carmen; Fiege, Dieter; Capaccioni-Azzati, Roman; El-Haddad, Mustapha. (2015). Annelida Polychaeta IV [Goniadidae, Glyceridae, Capitellidae, Aphroditidae, Polynoidae, Acoetidae, Sigalionidae and Pholoidae]. <em>In: M.A. Ramos et al. (Eds). Fauna Ibérica vol. 41. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Madrid.</em> 416 p., available online at http://editorial.csic.es/publicaciones/libros/12468/978-84-00-10006-3/fauna-iberica-vol-41-annelida-polychaeta-iv-.html
page(s): 405; note: In a note on Eumolpe status the authors suggest Lepidonotus should be a nomen protectum and (logically but not stated) Eumolpe is the matching nomen oblitum [details]   

source of synonymy Salazar-Silva, Patricia; López-Sánchez, Daniel A.; Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020). Revision of <em>Chaetacanthus</em> Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4885(3): 395-422., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
page(s): 421; note: formal fulfilment of the conditions for declaring Eumolpe Oken, 1808 as a nomen oblitum [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

status source McIntosh, W.C. 1900. A monograph of British Annelids. vol.1. pt.2. Polychaeta Amphinomidae to Sigalionidae. Ray Society of London, 1(l2): 215-442., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38577949
page(s): 274; note: McIntosh includes Eumolpe squamata Blainville, 1828 [sic for Oken, 1807] in the synonymy for Lepidonotus squamata [details]   
From editor or global species database
Authority Oken infamously liked to invent new genera in his commentaries, and it appears he does so when Oken (1807: 1168) introduces 'Eumolpe' for 'Aphrodite squammata' [sic] as a bare name, almost a nomen nudum except for the indication that it is intended for Aphrodita squamata. The Hartman catalogue (1959: 66) attributes Eumolpe to Blainville (1828: 457) without comment, but Blainville himself has Oken as genus author, and includes a number of re-assigned existing species which he places in subgroups. [details]

Etymology Not stated. Eumolpe is a personal female name used in Greek mythology. She was one of the Nereides, daughters of Nereus and Doris [details]

Homonymy There is no homonymy within Animalia. Nomenclature Zoologicus lists Eumolpe Gistl [sic for Gistel], 1848 as a homonym to Eumolpe Oken, 1807, but this is an incorrect assumption. The usage in Gistel [a school textbook], p. 163 is a simple mention in text flow of an existing name. In Plantae there is Eumolpe Decaisne ex Jacques & Hérincq, 1850 in Gesneriaceae [details]

Synonymy [Updated from a separate synonymy note (qv) of 2018]. As noted here in 2018, Parapar et al (2015: 405) had suggested Lepidonotus should be a nomen oblitum with respect to Lepidonotus. Their full text is a follows: "Eumolpe Oken, 1807: Este género, que tiene por especie tipo por monotipia a Aphrodita squamata Linnaeus, 1758, tiene prioridad sobre Lepidonotus Leach, 1816, pero no se usa como válido desde mediados del siglo XIX. Atribuido erróneamente a Blainville, 1828, cayó por este motivo en sinonimia de Lepídonotus Leach, 1816, a pesar de que Blainville mencionó correctamente a Oken como el autor. Es cierto que resulta realmente difícil encontrar la referencia original de este último, que se da aquí, lo que probablemente originó la atribución incorrecta de autor. Dado el tiempo transcurrido y el uso universal de Lepídonotus, este último debería declararse formalmente nomen protectum por los autores interesados
[Eumolpe Oken, 1807: This genus, which has Aphrodita squamata Linnaeus, 1758, as a monotypic type species, has priority over Lepidonotus Leach, 1816, but has not been used as valid since the middle of the 19th century. Wrongly attributed to Blainville, 1828, for this reason fell into synonymy with Lepídonotus Leach, 1816, although Blainville correctly mentioned Oken as the author. It is true that it is really difficult to find the original reference of the latter, which is given here, which probably led to the incorrect attribution of author. Given the time elapsed and the universal use of Lepídonotus, the latter should be formally declared nomen protectum by interested authors.]

Salazar-Silva et al (2020: 421) appear to be unaware the WoRMS treatment as updated in 2018 was based on the above statement, but correctly state that WoRMS "informally anticipated" that Eumolpe was a nomen oblitum. Salazar-Silva et al (2020) formally reverse precedence for the two names. [details]

Synonymy Parapar et al (2015: 405) suggested that, as Eumolpe Oken, 1807 is senior to Lepidonotus Leach, 1816, that latter name should be a nomen protectum and (logically but not stated) Eumolpe is the matching nomen oblitum. They do not state evidence that Eumolpe has not been used as a valid genus after 1899. Eumolpe is also a species epithet so usages as in BHL would need to be checked for context. Regardless, Lepidonotus would prevail if a formal application to uphold its validity was theoretically required, so probably the possibility of Eumolpe replacing it is hypothetical only. [details]