WoRMS name detailsLeucothea tiedemanni (Eschscholtz, 1825)
1726655 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1726655)
uncertain > nomen dubium
Species
Eucharis tiedemanni Eschscholtz, 1825 · unaccepted > superseded combination
Lesueuria tiedemanni (Eschscholtz, 1825) · unaccepted > superseded combination
marine
(of Eucharis tiedemanni Eschscholtz, 1825) Eschscholtz, Johann Friedrich von. (1825). Bericht über die zoologische Ausbeute während der Reise von Kronstadt bis St. Peter und Paul. <em>Isis von Oken.</em> 1825(6): 733-747, plate V., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27509188
page(s): 742 [details] 
Mills, C.E. Internet (1998-present). Phylum Ctenophora: list of all valid species names. Electronic internet document. Leucothea tiedemanni (Eschscholtz, 1825). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1726655 on 2024-07-09
Date action by
original description
(of Eucharis tiedemanni Eschscholtz, 1825) Eschscholtz, Johann Friedrich von. (1825). Bericht über die zoologische Ausbeute während der Reise von Kronstadt bis St. Peter und Paul. <em>Isis von Oken.</em> 1825(6): 733-747, plate V., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27509188
page(s): 742 [details] status source Mills, C. E.; Dubois, A. (2023). The taxonominal status of the nomina Lesueuria Milne Edwards, 1841 and Lesueuriidae Chun, 1880, and introduction of a new genus and a new family for Lesueuria pinnata Ralph & Kaberry, 1950, as well as an additional new species of the new genus (Ctenophora, Lobata). <em>Bionomina.</em> 36(1): 1-35., available online at https://www.mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.36.1.1/52557 page(s): 8; note: "Current authors agree that E. tiedemanni Eschscholtz, 1825 belongs to the genus Leucothea Mertens, 1833, but as a dubious species, acknowledging that Eschscholtz’s (1825) original description does ... "Current authors agree that E. tiedemanni Eschscholtz, 1825 belongs to the genus Leucothea Mertens, 1833, but as a dubious species, acknowledging that Eschscholtz’s (1825) original description does not offer enough information for this species to be distinguished from L. japonica Komai, 1918"  [request] |
