WoRMS taxon details

Listriolobus Fischer, 1926 [not Spengel, 1912]

264917  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:264917)

accepted
Genus
Listriolobus bahamensis Fischer, 1926 (type by subsequent designation)
marine, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
Fischer, W. (1926). Sipunculiden und Echiuriden der Hamburger Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1909. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staats-Instit uutned Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg. 42: 104–117.
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]   
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author...  
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author of the genus. This would not be possible. Nishikawa (2004) examined the situation. He stated that, although Spengel (1912) failed to make a type designation and did not assign any nominal species to the new genus, this does not make the genus a nomen nudum since proposed before 1931. Spengel gave a definition of the genus, and this was sufficient at the time. However, this is a little doubtful as it seems Listriolobus was applied to a misidentification of Thalassema erythrogrammon. It seems Spengel was NOT transferring T. erythrogrammon to the new genus, thus there was no species for the genus. This is not possible. Fischer (1926) must be the author of the genus (in addition he stated he was). [details]
WoRMS (2018). Listriolobus Fischer, 1926 [not Spengel, 1912]. Accessed at: http://marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=264917 on 2018-05-22
Date
action
by
2008-01-04 11:36:57Z
created
2008-08-08 08:28:57Z
changed
2016-09-08 21:40:26Z
changed
2017-08-15 08:38:31Z
changed

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


original description Fischer, W. (1926). Sipunculiden und Echiuriden der Hamburger Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1909. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staats-Instit uutned Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg. 42: 104–117.
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]   

taxonomy source Nishikawa, Teruaki. (2004). Synonymy of the West-Pacific echiuran Listriolobus sorbillans (Echiura: Echiuridae), with taxonomic notes towards a generic revision. Species Diversity. 9(2): 109–123., available online at http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006794426/en [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

basis of record van der Land, J. (ed). (2008). UNESCO-IOC Register of Marine Organisms (URMO). , available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/urmo/ [details]   

additional source Murina, Vantsetti. List of Echiura. [details]   

additional source Satô, H. (1939). Studies on the Echiuroidea, Sipunculoidea and Priapuloidea of Japan. Science Reports of the Tôhoku Imperial University, Fourth Series, Biology. 14 (4): 339–460, plates XIX–XXIII. [details]   

subsequent type designation Fisher, W. K. (1946). Echiuroid worms of the North Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 96: 215–292, plates 20–37., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/31809#page/249/mode/1up [details]   

emendation (re-diagnosis of genus) Fisher, W. K. (1949). Additions to the echiuroid fauna of the North Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 99(3248): 479–497, plates 28–34., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/32791#page/521/mode/1up [details]   
From editor or global species database
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author of the genus. This would not be possible. Nishikawa (2004) examined the situation. He stated that, although Spengel (1912) failed to make a type designation and did not assign any nominal species to the new genus, this does not make the genus a nomen nudum since proposed before 1931. Spengel gave a definition of the genus, and this was sufficient at the time. However, this is a little doubtful as it seems Listriolobus was applied to a misidentification of Thalassema erythrogrammon. It seems Spengel was NOT transferring T. erythrogrammon to the new genus, thus there was no species for the genus. This is not possible. Fischer (1926) must be the author of the genus (in addition he stated he was). [details]