WoRMS name details
original description
Lamarck, J.B. (1818). [volume 5 of] Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, préséntant les caractères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des principales espèces qui s'y rapportent; precedes d'une Introduction offrant la determination des caracteres essentiels de l'Animal, sa distinction du vegetal et desautres corps naturels, enfin, l'Exposition des Principes fondamentaux de la Zoologie. <em>Paris, Deterville.</em> vol 5: 612 pp., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879 page(s): 339-341 [details]
original description
(of Clymenoida Williams, 1852) Williams, Thomas. (1852). Report on the British Annelida. <em>Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1851.</em> 159-272. plates 2-11 [bound at end of volume]., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13846822 page(s): 209 [details]
basis of record
Fauchald, K. (1977). The polychaete worms, definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. <em>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Los Angeles, CA (USA), Science Series.</em> 28:1-188., available online at http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/123110.pdf [details]
additional source
Fauchald, K. (1977). The polychaete worms, definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. <em>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Los Angeles, CA (USA), Science Series.</em> 28:1-188., available online at http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/123110.pdf [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Authority Lamarck alone is the author as the text is not a copy from Savigny. There is no doubt that Lamarck derived and based Clymene on the MS of Savigny (as he comments "In making known to us the singular genus of the clymens, M. Savigny has enlightened us in a particular manner to which we did not think with regard to the annelids"), but Savigny did not write the genus diagnosis text in Lamarck, and Savigny's later presentation in 1822 is very different [details]
Etymology Presumed to be the female name used in ancient Greece. In mythology Clymene was a river nymph, daughter of Ocean and Tethys. Although Clymene itself is said to be indeterminable there are several maldanid genera based on modifications of the name (Macroclymenella, Macroclymene, Euclymene, Abyssoclymene, Aclymene, Clymenura, Clymenopsis, Lumbriclymene, Lumbriclymenella, Microclymene, Petaloclymene, Proclymene, Pseudoclymene) [details]
Homonymy Although widely considered (see comments of Day below) a junior homonym to a usage by Oken, the prior use of Clymene by Oken (1807, 1815) can probably be ignored, although strictly the ICZN would need to rule on this (see comment under Clymene Oken, 1807, 1815, Aphia 596529), which leaves Clymene Lamarck, 1818 as the senior of the Clymene homonyms (there are others in Mammalia and Insecta) to follow the mention in Oken. However, the Clymene type species, Clymene amphistoma in Lamarck, 1818 is considered indeterminable (perhaps wrongly).
Day (1961: 520) commented that: "several workers, including Arwidsson (1922) and Hartman (1959), have pointed out that not only is Clymene preoccupied [probably is not] but it was also founded on three [but see below] indeterminate species one of which was probably a species of Nicomache. Thus in spite of the fact that it has gained respectability with long usage it must be replaced by valid and more accurately defined genera." Day is incorrect that Clymene was founded on three species, as Lamarck only published Clymene amphistoma, with the other two species published later by Savigny. Savigny has a good description and figures of type species Clymene amphistoma [GBR updated Nov. 2017] [details]
Validity Clymene is listed as indeterminable in Fauchald (1977), and Hartman Catalogue has the unusual statement "erected for 3 species, 2 of which are indeterminable, and the third referred to Nicomache. See also Euclymene Verrill, 1900." It is hard to see how Euclymene, a replacement name for Clymene due to apparent homonymy, can be a valid name if Clymene itself is indeterminable taxonomically. The misunderstanding may be because Verrill changed the type species to Clymene oerstedii, a much later species, when substituting Euclymene for Clymene. The change he made is not possible under the ICZN Code. [details]
| |