Polychaeta name details
original description
(of Phalacrophorus borealis Reibisch, 1895) Reibisch, J.G.F. (1895). Die pelagischen Phyllodociden und Typhloscoleciden der Plankton-Expedition. <em>Ergebnisse der in dem Atlantischen Ocean von Mitte Juli bis Anfang November 1889 ausgeführten Plankton-Expedition der Humboldt-Stiftung.</em> 2.H.c: 1-63, plates I-V., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2130690 page(s): 12, plate 1, figure 8-9 [details]
redescription
Jirkov, I.A. (2001). [Polychaeta of the Arctic Ocean] (In Russian) Polikhety severnogo Ledovitogo Okeana. Yanus-K Press, Moscow, 632 pp., available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259865957_Jirkov_2001_Polychaeta_of_the_North_Polar_Basin [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Kolbasova, Glafira; Kosobokova, Ksenia; Neretina, Tatiana. (2020). Bathy- and mesopelagic annelida from the Arctic Ocean: Description of new, redescription of known and notes on some “cosmopolitan” species. <em>Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers.</em> 165: 103327., available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063720301151 page(s): 8 of 23; note: Rank upgrade to species in the discussion, following brief description from 3 specimens, from Nansen and Amundsen Basins of the Arctic Ocean [details] Available for editors [request]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Status Kolbasova et al (2020: 8, 19) present a description under the heading Phalacrophorus pictus borealis and two figure plates both labelled as Phalacrophorus pictus borealis. However, in their discussion they change this subspecies status. They state: "Taking into account differences in morphology between our specimens and P. pictus, as well as differences in their geographical distributions, we agree with Ushakov (1972) and Druzhkov et al. (2000) and conclude that P. borealis should be re-instated as a valid species." [details]
|