WoRMS name details
basis of record
Guérin-Méneville, F.E. (1829-1844). <i>Iconographie du Règne Animal de G. Cuvier, ou représentation d'après nature de l'une des espèces les plus remarquables, et souvent non encore figurées, de chaque genre d'animaux, avec un texte descriptif mis au courant de la science. Ouvrage pouvant servir d'atlas à tous les traités de zoologie</i>. Tome 2. Planches des animaux invertébrés. J.B. Baillière, Paris and London. , available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27813845 page(s): Page 23. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27812815 [details]
additional source
Neave, Sheffield Airey. (1939-1996). Nomenclator Zoologicus vol. 1-10 Online. <em>[Online Nomenclator Zoologicus at Checklistbank. Ubio link has gone].</em> , available online at https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/126539/about [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Spelling Leach, in his original description of the genus, wrote Ampithoe, but most people are convinced that he meant to honour the nymph Amphitoe, and therefore corrected the spelling. As Leach never was explicit, however, this correction is not permitted and the original spelling Ampithoe has to stand.
Many authors, up to Traudl Krapp-Schickel and Denise Bellan-Santini in the 1980's, have continued to use the spelling Amphithoe. And this is the main reason , that the names of later genera, based on the genus name Ampithoe, often have the spelling with the ph: Peramphithoe, Paramphithoe etc. The case of Sunamphitoe is special, as here a further spelling mistake crept in and has now to be perpetuated for ever.
The rules of nomenclature are clear enough, in this case, so that no special rulings have ever been necessary. All the genus names in this family, as in all others, have to be spelled the way their original authors spelled them. But in this family one has to be extra careful to get it right. [details]
| |