WoRMS taxon details
Tetrocycloecia Canu, 1917
Tretocycloecia Canu & Bassler, 1920 · unaccepted
- Species Tetrocycloecia flabellaris Canu & Bassler, 1929
- Species Tetrocycloecia magna (O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue, 1923)
- Species Tetrocycloecia neozelanica (Busk, 1879)
- Species Tetrocycloecia parapelliculata (Taylor, Schembri & Cook, 1989)
- Species Tetrocycloecia parvula Canu & Bassler, 1929
- Species Tetrocycloecia pelliculata (Waters, 1879)
- Species Tetrocycloecia ramosa Canu & Bassler, 1929
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent + fossil
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Three genera have been defined with the same nominal type species, Ceriopora dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827. These are...
Taxonomic remark Three genera have been defined with the same nominal type species, Ceriopora dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827. These are Tetrocycloecia, Grammascosoecia and Pseudoceriopora.
Canu (1919) introduced Tetrocycloecia. Canu, 1919 with the type species defined as "Ceriopora dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827 sensu Reuss, 1848". However, Canu was using French material, and this was likely not the same as Reuss' species. In 1920, Canu & Bassler corrected the name to Tretocycloecia, and the type species was listed as "Tretocycloecia (Heteropora) dichotoma Reuss , 1847, not Hagenow, 1851". (Hagenow did not introduce a new species, but identified the Goldfuss species as a new combination). The spelling Tretocycloecia is an unjustified emendation that has been rejected - see Nye, 1972. :ter, Canu & Bassler (1922) defined Grammascosoecia in the Family Ascosoeciidae, with the type species Grammascosoecia (Ceriopora) dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827 (Note the name in brackets is the original genus, not a subgeneric name). Material from the Maastrichtian of Holland was used in the revision of Goldfuss species: the Reuss reference was not used in the synonymy. This implies that Canu in 1919 was defining a new species Tetrocycloecia dichotoma Canu, 1919.
In 1972, Brood defined a new genus Pseudoceriopora in the family Pseudocerioporidae, with the type species Pseudoceriopora (Ceriopora) dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827. Brood included the following Remarks:
"CANU and BASSLER established a genus Grammascosoecia with CerioÂpora dichotoma GOLDFUSS as genotype. Their description is however, incomplete. The important character according to CANU and BASSLER is the presence of a »median lamella» in the interior of the stems. However, no such lamella has been found in the material investigated by the present writer, nor was it found by VOIGT (1951) in an investigation of one hundred specimens. VOIGT'S opinion that Grammascosoecia dichotoma (CANU and BASSLER) must represent another species than Ceriopora dichotoma GOLDFUSS is fully supported by the present writer. If further studies will show, however, that Grammascosoecia dichotoma (CANU and BASSLER) is conspecific with Ceriopora dichotoma GOLDFUSS, PseudoÂceriopora must be considered a junior synonym of Grammascosoecia" .
Brood was using "several hundred specimens", from the Santonian and Campanian of Malen and Ifö in Sweden, so it is uncertain that his material was similar to that of Hagenow.
The three genera have been defined using the same available name, apparently without study of the original material, or by defining a neotype. This is a taxonomic mess. These three genera presumably represent quite distinct concepts in the view of the authors, yet we still do not have a modern description for the species named by Hagenow (nor the material misidentified by Reuss). The strict interpretation of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature would make all three genera objective synonyms. It is permissible to define a new species by misidentification, but this should be accompanied by a complete revision using comparative material. [details]
Canu (1919) introduced Tetrocycloecia. Canu, 1919 with the type species defined as "Ceriopora dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827 sensu Reuss, 1848". However, Canu was using French material, and this was likely not the same as Reuss' species. In 1920, Canu & Bassler corrected the name to Tretocycloecia, and the type species was listed as "Tretocycloecia (Heteropora) dichotoma Reuss , 1847, not Hagenow, 1851". (Hagenow did not introduce a new species, but identified the Goldfuss species as a new combination). The spelling Tretocycloecia is an unjustified emendation that has been rejected - see Nye, 1972. :ter, Canu & Bassler (1922) defined Grammascosoecia in the Family Ascosoeciidae, with the type species Grammascosoecia (Ceriopora) dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827 (Note the name in brackets is the original genus, not a subgeneric name). Material from the Maastrichtian of Holland was used in the revision of Goldfuss species: the Reuss reference was not used in the synonymy. This implies that Canu in 1919 was defining a new species Tetrocycloecia dichotoma Canu, 1919.
In 1972, Brood defined a new genus Pseudoceriopora in the family Pseudocerioporidae, with the type species Pseudoceriopora (Ceriopora) dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827. Brood included the following Remarks:
"CANU and BASSLER established a genus Grammascosoecia with CerioÂpora dichotoma GOLDFUSS as genotype. Their description is however, incomplete. The important character according to CANU and BASSLER is the presence of a »median lamella» in the interior of the stems. However, no such lamella has been found in the material investigated by the present writer, nor was it found by VOIGT (1951) in an investigation of one hundred specimens. VOIGT'S opinion that Grammascosoecia dichotoma (CANU and BASSLER) must represent another species than Ceriopora dichotoma GOLDFUSS is fully supported by the present writer. If further studies will show, however, that Grammascosoecia dichotoma (CANU and BASSLER) is conspecific with Ceriopora dichotoma GOLDFUSS, PseudoÂceriopora must be considered a junior synonym of Grammascosoecia" .
Brood was using "several hundred specimens", from the Santonian and Campanian of Malen and Ifö in Sweden, so it is uncertain that his material was similar to that of Hagenow.
The three genera have been defined using the same available name, apparently without study of the original material, or by defining a neotype. This is a taxonomic mess. These three genera presumably represent quite distinct concepts in the view of the authors, yet we still do not have a modern description for the species named by Hagenow (nor the material misidentified by Reuss). The strict interpretation of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature would make all three genera objective synonyms. It is permissible to define a new species by misidentification, but this should be accompanied by a complete revision using comparative material. [details]
Bock, P. (2024). World List of Bryozoa. Tetrocycloecia Canu, 1917. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=468812 on 2024-05-24
Date
action
by
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
(of Tretocycloecia Canu & Bassler, 1920) Canu, F.; Bassler, R. S. (1920). North American early Tertiary Bryozoa. <em>United States National Museum Bulletin.</em> 106: 1-879. (2 vols.)., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/946782
page(s): 826 [details]
page(s): 826 [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Taxonomic remark Three genera have been defined with the same nominal type species, Ceriopora dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827. These are Tetrocycloecia, Grammascosoecia and Pseudoceriopora.Canu (1919) introduced Tetrocycloecia. Canu, 1919 with the type species defined as "Ceriopora dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827 sensu Reuss, 1848". However, Canu was using French material, and this was likely not the same as Reuss' species. In 1920, Canu & Bassler corrected the name to Tretocycloecia, and the type species was listed as "Tretocycloecia (Heteropora) dichotoma Reuss , 1847, not Hagenow, 1851". (Hagenow did not introduce a new species, but identified the Goldfuss species as a new combination). The spelling Tretocycloecia is an unjustified emendation that has been rejected - see Nye, 1972. :ter, Canu & Bassler (1922) defined Grammascosoecia in the Family Ascosoeciidae, with the type species Grammascosoecia (Ceriopora) dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827 (Note the name in brackets is the original genus, not a subgeneric name). Material from the Maastrichtian of Holland was used in the revision of Goldfuss species: the Reuss reference was not used in the synonymy. This implies that Canu in 1919 was defining a new species Tetrocycloecia dichotoma Canu, 1919.
In 1972, Brood defined a new genus Pseudoceriopora in the family Pseudocerioporidae, with the type species Pseudoceriopora (Ceriopora) dichotoma Goldfuss, 1827. Brood included the following Remarks:
"CANU and BASSLER established a genus Grammascosoecia with CerioÂpora dichotoma GOLDFUSS as genotype. Their description is however, incomplete. The important character according to CANU and BASSLER is the presence of a »median lamella» in the interior of the stems. However, no such lamella has been found in the material investigated by the present writer, nor was it found by VOIGT (1951) in an investigation of one hundred specimens. VOIGT'S opinion that Grammascosoecia dichotoma (CANU and BASSLER) must represent another species than Ceriopora dichotoma GOLDFUSS is fully supported by the present writer. If further studies will show, however, that Grammascosoecia dichotoma (CANU and BASSLER) is conspecific with Ceriopora dichotoma GOLDFUSS, PseudoÂceriopora must be considered a junior synonym of Grammascosoecia" .
Brood was using "several hundred specimens", from the Santonian and Campanian of Malen and Ifö in Sweden, so it is uncertain that his material was similar to that of Hagenow.
The three genera have been defined using the same available name, apparently without study of the original material, or by defining a neotype. This is a taxonomic mess. These three genera presumably represent quite distinct concepts in the view of the authors, yet we still do not have a modern description for the species named by Hagenow (nor the material misidentified by Reuss). The strict interpretation of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature would make all three genera objective synonyms. It is permissible to define a new species by misidentification, but this should be accompanied by a complete revision using comparative material. [details]
