WoRMS name details

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorSorbeoconcha

382203  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:382203)

Ponder & Lindberg, 1997
alternate representation
Superorder
marine
Ponder W.F. & Lindberg D.R. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 119: 83-265. [details]   
Gofas, S. (2010). Sorbeoconcha. In: MolluscaBase (2017). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=382203 on 2017-12-18

Date
action
by
2009-02-02 11:06:43Z
created
2009-03-27 17:40:10Z
changed
2009-08-13 07:23:33Z
changed
db_admin
2010-06-02 13:20:13Z
changed

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


original description Ponder W.F. & Lindberg D.R. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 119: 83-265. [details]   

basis of record An outline for the classification of Phylum Mollusca in taxonomic databases [report elaborated by WoRMS editors for internal use, june 2010] [details]  OpenAccess publication 
From editor or global species database
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorClassification Sorbeoconcha should include [Cerithioidea + Campaniloidea + all Hypsogastropoda (i.e. the remaining Caenogastropoda)], see definition in Ponder & Lindberg, 1997: 225, not only [Cerithioidea + Campaniloidea] as suggested by the indent pattern in Bouchet & Rocroi. Neotaenioglossa Haller, 1892 suggested in Ruud Bank’s draft for Fauna Europaea is not retained because it would need severe emendation to remove Pyramidellids, Cerithioids, etc.. included in its original definition, and therefore would be too far from Haller's concept if it were to fit the concept of Sorbeoconcha. Although cladistically sound, the taxon Sorbeoconcha is skipped in the classification scheme because (1) ten years after its publication, the name still sounds unfamiliar to most and (2) it is not very helpful in the classification because it includes the bulk of Caenogastropoda (only keeping out small stem groups Abyssochrysidae, Provannidae, and the architaenioglossate taxa). This is not final, opinions are welcome.  [details]