| About | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Specimens | | Distribution | | Checklist | | Stats | | Log in |
Polychaeta name detailsLeodice enteles Chamberlin, 1918
328724 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:328724)
uncertain > taxon inquirendum (type is missing)
Species
Eunice enteles (Chamberlin, 1918) · unaccepted (superseded recombination)
marine,
recent only
Chamberlin, Ralph V. 1918. Polychaetes from Monterey Bay. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 31: 173-180., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3332088
page(s): 175-176 [no figures] [details]
Note Pacific Grove, southern Monterey Bay,...
From editor or global species database
Type locality Pacific Grove, southern Monterey Bay, California, estimated coastal geolocation 36.6207 -121.9032. Chamberlin states in his introduction that all his material comes from Pacific Grove. [details]
Type material Fauchald (1992:132) reports there is no type material of Leodice enteles at MCZ. However, earlier Hartman (1938: 95 ) in her new species from California article writes "Through the courtesy of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard it has been possible to study typical parapodia of the holotypes of Leodice enteles Chamberlin (figs. 8, 9)". This may indicate she saw already-mounted slides. However, she does not mention this material in her review of MCZ types of the same year (1938), and has no mention of Leodice enteles [details]
Status Moniliform antennae therefore best retained as a Leodice.There are no original figures and types are lost. Fauchald...
Status Moniliform antennae therefore best retained as a Leodice.There are no original figures and types are lost. Fauchald regarded the species as indeterminable. Apparently it is similar to Leodice monilifer Chamberlin, 1919, but that name is also indeterminable as a species according to Fauchald, as the type is similarly lost. [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2025). World Polychaeta Database. Leodice enteles Chamberlin, 1918. Accessed at: https://marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=328724 on 2026-08-05
Date action by
original description
Chamberlin, Ralph V. 1918. Polychaetes from Monterey Bay. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 31: 173-180., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3332088
page(s): 175-176 [no figures] [details] additional source Hartman, Olga. (1944). Polychaetous Annelids. Part V. Eunicea. <em>Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions.</em> 10(1): 1-237., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4679950 page(s): 116; note: Hartman includes Leodice enteles in records for Eunice antennata off California. Fauchald (1992) regarded these E. antennata records as misidentications, in part presumably truly of Leodice enteles. [details] status source Fauchald, K. (1992). A review of the genus <i>Eunice</i> (Eunicidae: Polychaeta) based upon type material. <em>Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology.</em> 523: 1-422., available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.523 [details] From editor or global species database
Status Moniliform antennae therefore best retained as a Leodice.There are no original figures and types are lost. Fauchald regarded the species as indeterminable. Apparently it is similar to Leodice monilifer Chamberlin, 1919, but that name is also indeterminable as a species according to Fauchald, as the type is similarly lost. [details]Type locality Pacific Grove, southern Monterey Bay, California, estimated coastal geolocation 36.6207 -121.9032. Chamberlin states in his introduction that all his material comes from Pacific Grove. [details] Type material Fauchald (1992:132) reports there is no type material of Leodice enteles at MCZ. However, earlier Hartman (1938: 95 ) in her new species from California article writes "Through the courtesy of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard it has been possible to study typical parapodia of the holotypes of Leodice enteles Chamberlin (figs. 8, 9)". This may indicate she saw already-mounted slides. However, she does not mention this material in her review of MCZ types of the same year (1938), and has no mention of Leodice enteles [details] |