| About | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Checklist | | Stats | | Log in |
ARMS taxon detailsFionidae Gray, 1857
marine
Not documented
MolluscaBase eds. (2024). MolluscaBase. Fionidae Gray, 1857. Accessed through: Sirenko, B.I.; Clarke, C.; Hopcroft, R.R.; Huettmann, F.; Bluhm, B.A.; Gradinger, R. (eds) (2024) The Arctic Register of Marine Species (ARMS) compiled by the Arctic Ocean Diversity (ArcOD) at: https://marinespecies.org/arms/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=23039 on 2024-05-07
Sirenko, B.I.; Clarke, C.; Hopcroft, R.R.; Huettmann, F.; Bluhm, B.A.; Gradinger, R. (eds) (2024). The Arctic Register of Marine Species (ARMS) compiled by the Arctic Ocean Diversity (ArcOD). Fionidae Gray, 1857. Accessed at: https://marinespecies.org/arms/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=23039 on 2024-05-07
Date action by 2004-12-21 15:54:05Z created db_admin 2009-08-17 07:26:35Z changed db_admin
context source (PeRMS)
Ramírez, R.; Paredes, C.; Arenas, J. (2003). Moluscos del Perú. <em>Revista de Biologia Tropical.</em> 51(supplement 3): 225-284. [details] Available for editors
 additional source Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. (2005). Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families. <em>Malacologia.</em> 47 (1-2): 1-397. [20 July]., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25127200 [details] Available for editors additional source Cella, K; Carmona Barnosi, L.; Ekimova, I; Chichvarkhin, A; Schepetov, D; Gosliner, T. M. (2016). A radical solution: The phylogeny of the nudibranch family Fionidae. <em>PLoS ONE.</em> 11(12): e0167800., available online at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167800 note: a taxonomic view lumping the families Calmidae, Tergipedidae, Eubranchidae, Cuthonidae, Trinchesiidae and (implicitly by including their type species) Cuthonellidae, Murmaniidae, Abronicidae. Korshun... a taxonomic view lumping the families Calmidae, Tergipedidae, Eubranchidae, Cuthonidae, Trinchesiidae and (implicitly by including their type species) Cuthonellidae, Murmaniidae, Abronicidae. Korshunova et al. (2017) consider those as distinct but produce a phylogenetic hypothesis (p. 78) in which they all belong to the same clade; therefore the discrepancy stems from ranking rather than from assumed relationships. |
