WoRMS taxon details
Lamprophaes Grube, 1867
325856 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:325856)
accepted
Genus
Lamprophaes cuprea Grube, 1867 (type by monotypy)
Lamprophaea Salazar-Vallejo, 2020 · unaccepted (unjustified emendation of the...)
unjustified emendation of the spelling of Lamprophaes, to which it becomes a junior objective synonym
- Species Lamprophaes aurita (Hessle, 1925)
- Species Lamprophaes cornuta Salazar-Vallejo, 2020
- Species Lamprophaes cuprea Grube, 1867
- Species Lamprophaes longicirrata (Treadwell, 1902)
- Species Lamprophaes ockeri Salazar-Vallejo, 2020
- Species Lamprophaes paulayi Salazar-Vallejo, 2020
- Species Lamprophaes pettiboneae Salazar-Vallejo, 2020
- Species Lamprophaes pleijeli Salazar-Vallejo, 2020
- Species Lamprophaes poupini Salazar-Vallejo, 2020
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
feminine
Grube, A.E. (1867). Neue anneliden aus den Gattungen Eunice, Hesione, Lamprophaës, und Travisia. <em>Jahres-Bericht der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Vaterländische Cultur. Breslau.</em> 44: 64-66., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46548206
page(s): 65 [details]
page(s): 65 [details]
Etymology Grube's account is very brief with no etymology, but Salazar-Vallejo (2020) states it is likely a combination made from the...
Homonymy Lamprophaes Grube, 1867 is senior homonym to Lamprophaes Lefèvre, 1876 in Insecta. Lefèvre appears only to create the...
Etymology Grube's account is very brief with no etymology, but Salazar-Vallejo (2020) states it is likely a combination made from the Greek words lampro meaning bright, brilliant or radiant (Brown 1956: 460), and phaios (stem phae) meaning dusky or brown (Brown 1956: 168). [details]
Homonymy Lamprophaes Grube, 1867 is senior homonym to Lamprophaes Lefèvre, 1876 in Insecta. Lefèvre appears only to create the...
Homonymy Lamprophaes Grube, 1867 is senior homonym to Lamprophaes Lefèvre, 1876 in Insecta. Lefèvre appears only to create the genus in a heading without formally including a species, and he uses a ligature 'ae' instead of a diaereis 'e' (Descriptions d’Eumolpides nouveaux ou peu connus. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée, 3ème Série, 4, 278–311. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33761264). [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2024). World Polychaeta Database. Lamprophaes Grube, 1867. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=325856 on 2024-05-01
Date
action
by
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
Grube, A.E. (1867). Neue anneliden aus den Gattungen Eunice, Hesione, Lamprophaës, und Travisia. <em>Jahres-Bericht der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Vaterländische Cultur. Breslau.</em> 44: 64-66., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46548206
page(s): 65 [details]
taxonomy source Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020). Revision of <em>Leocrates</em> Kinberg, 1866 and <em>Leocratides</em> Ehlers, 1908 (Annelida, Errantia, Hesionidae). <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4739(1): 1-114., available online at https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4739.1.1
page(s): 28; note: unjustified emendation of the genus spelling from the correct original Lamprophaës to 'Lamprophaea' [details] Available for editors
[request]
source of synonymy Chamberlin, Ralph V. (1919). The Annelida Polychaeta [Albatross Expeditions]. <em>Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College.</em> 48: 1-514., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ia/memoirsofmuseumo4801harv
page(s): 190; note: Lamprophaes Grube 1867 is listed as a synonym of Leocrates Kinberg, 1866. There is no explanatory text [details]
status source Hartman, Olga. (1959). Catalogue of the Polychaetous Annelids of the World. Parts 1 and 2. <em>Allan Hancock Foundation Occasional Paper.</em> 23: 1-628.
page(s): 187; note: Lamprophaes and L. cuprea Grube are listed as referred to Leocrates [details] Available for editors [request]
page(s): 65 [details]
taxonomy source Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020). Revision of <em>Leocrates</em> Kinberg, 1866 and <em>Leocratides</em> Ehlers, 1908 (Annelida, Errantia, Hesionidae). <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4739(1): 1-114., available online at https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4739.1.1
page(s): 28; note: unjustified emendation of the genus spelling from the correct original Lamprophaës to 'Lamprophaea' [details] Available for editors
[request] source of synonymy Chamberlin, Ralph V. (1919). The Annelida Polychaeta [Albatross Expeditions]. <em>Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College.</em> 48: 1-514., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ia/memoirsofmuseumo4801harv
page(s): 190; note: Lamprophaes Grube 1867 is listed as a synonym of Leocrates Kinberg, 1866. There is no explanatory text [details]
status source Hartman, Olga. (1959). Catalogue of the Polychaetous Annelids of the World. Parts 1 and 2. <em>Allan Hancock Foundation Occasional Paper.</em> 23: 1-628.
page(s): 187; note: Lamprophaes and L. cuprea Grube are listed as referred to Leocrates [details] Available for editors
[request] From editor or global species database
Etymology Grube's account is very brief with no etymology, but Salazar-Vallejo (2020) states it is likely a combination made from the Greek words lampro meaning bright, brilliant or radiant (Brown 1956: 460), and phaios (stem phae) meaning dusky or brown (Brown 1956: 168). [details]Grammatical gender Lamprophaes itself is of uncertain gender, but should be treated as feminine solely because Grube, 1867 paired as species name the feminine 'cuprea' from the Latin adjective cupreus -a -um meaning 'of copper'. Curiously Grube (1878:106) later presented the name recombined as Leocrates cupreus (Leocrates is masculine) with Lamprophaes cupreus listed (incorrectly) as the original name which would make Lamprophaes also masculine, but the spelling used first in 1867 must be retained unless we can be certain Grube was correcting an error in 1878. Rather it looks simply as if he made a small unnoticed mistake in recording the original name. [details]
Homonymy Lamprophaes Grube, 1867 is senior homonym to Lamprophaes Lefèvre, 1876 in Insecta. Lefèvre appears only to create the genus in a heading without formally including a species, and he uses a ligature 'ae' instead of a diaereis 'e' (Descriptions d’Eumolpides nouveaux ou peu connus. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée, 3ème Série, 4, 278–311. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33761264). [details]
Spelling Grube in 1867 and 1878 and 1880 used the spelling "Lamprophaës", each time with a diaeresis (indicating the e should be pronounced separately). There is no evidence of a lapsus calumi in the presentation of the intended name. Also Lefèvre (see homonymy) uses the same spelling in 1876 for an insect genus, except with a ligature 'ae' instead of a diaereis 'e'. As for similar compound genus constructions based on colour there are several including an apparently feminine binominal Lepidopteran name, also with diaeresis, of Electrophaës chrysophaës (Prout, L. B. (1923): New Geometridae in the Tring Museum. — Novitates Zoologicae 30 (2): 191-215). There is a speciose fish genus called Melamphaës Günther, 1864. Names including '-phaës' are unexceptional.
However, Salazar-Vallejo (2020: 28) introduced the changed spelling 'Lamprophaea', stating that "the suffix needs a modification into –phaea, which is the feminine form, and especially because this was the original intention of the author" and citing ICZN 1999, Article 32.5.1. This is a misinterpretation of Article 32.5.1 which relates only to inadvertent errors and absolutely excludes ad hoc 'corrections' of what later workers may think, rightly or (in this case) wrongly, are incorrect original latinizations. The title of the original description article includes Grube's genus spelling as Lamprophaës, and he repeated it identically twice years later, so there is no case that the spelling was accidentally wrong, and no need to change the genus spelling more than 150 years afterwards based on a subjective contrary opinion to Grube on how the name should be constructed. [details]
