Copepoda name details
Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1877
1297895 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1297895)
uncertain > nomen dubium
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Krichagin, N.A. (1877). Otchet' ob' ekskursii na Sv. bereg' Chernago morya soverskennoi po pozucheniyu Kievskago obshchestva estestvois'pytatelei letom' 1874 g. <em>Zapiski Kiyevskago Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei (Mémoires de la Société des Naturalistes de Kiev).</em> 5(1):1-56, pls. 1-4. [details] 
Taxonomic remark OBSERVATIONS OF SHUHEI NISHIDA
Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1977
The original description of O. minuta by Krichagin (1977)...
Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1977
The original description of O. minuta by Krichagin (1977)...
Taxonomic remark OBSERVATIONS OF SHUHEI NISHIDA
Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1977
The original description of O. minuta by Krichagin (1977) lacks precision in many respects (e.g. number of setae on appendages), but indicates close resemblance of the species with O. nana Giesbrecht, 1981. If the two species are conspecific, O. minuta should be treated as the valid name and O. nana as a junior synonym. However, detailed comparison of the two species on the basis of the types has not yet been performed. Meanwhile, according to Shuvalov (1980) and Brodsky (1948), O. minuta Krichagin is a senior synonym of O. nana but should be treated as invalid because the name O. nana is much more popular. But Petipa (1970) and Sazhina (1960) used the name O. minuta when they studied the Black-Sea copepods.
More recently Gubanova et al. (2014) mentioned: “Oithona minuta was firstly found in the Black Sea by Krichagin (1873). Giesbrecht (1892), having no knowledge of Krichagin's paper, described the same species from the Mediterranean Sea as O. nana. The latter name was used in copepod publications throughout the world. Nevertheless, this species continues to be cited as O. minuta in several publications on the Black Sea zooplankton (Kovalev, 1984). Sazhina and Kovalev (1971) noted that such nomenclature inconsistency has led to some confusion in taxonomic publications. Moreover, in 1894 the name Oithona (Dioithona) minuta was given by Scott (1894b) to a species with a different morphology and natural habitat than that of O. nana (Shuvalov, 1980). Thus, despite Krichagin (1873) discovered this species, the valid common name for this Black Sea copepod species O. nana (Giesbrecht, 1892) should be accepted and used.” [Nishida: Note that “Krichagin (1873) should be (1877) and Giesbrecht (1892) should be (1891).]
I completely agree with this opinion, since the use of O. minuta instead of O. nana will invite serious confusion in various aspects.
Under this circumstance, based on the Article 23.9.3 of ICZN, it is necessary to propose the Committee to keep the name O. nana as valid and treat the name O. minuta Krichagin as a nomen oblitum.
Actually, in 1985, I examined specimens of O. minuta Krichagin from the Black Sea, identified and sent by Dr. Petipa, and confirmed its similarity to O. nana, but so far I have been unable to make such a proposal to the Committee, due mainly to my negligence.
These are all what I can tell about the status of O. minuta Krichagin, 1977 and O. minuta T. Scott, 1894. Please note that all these are still personal observation and not yet published. [details]
Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1977
The original description of O. minuta by Krichagin (1977) lacks precision in many respects (e.g. number of setae on appendages), but indicates close resemblance of the species with O. nana Giesbrecht, 1981. If the two species are conspecific, O. minuta should be treated as the valid name and O. nana as a junior synonym. However, detailed comparison of the two species on the basis of the types has not yet been performed. Meanwhile, according to Shuvalov (1980) and Brodsky (1948), O. minuta Krichagin is a senior synonym of O. nana but should be treated as invalid because the name O. nana is much more popular. But Petipa (1970) and Sazhina (1960) used the name O. minuta when they studied the Black-Sea copepods.
More recently Gubanova et al. (2014) mentioned: “Oithona minuta was firstly found in the Black Sea by Krichagin (1873). Giesbrecht (1892), having no knowledge of Krichagin's paper, described the same species from the Mediterranean Sea as O. nana. The latter name was used in copepod publications throughout the world. Nevertheless, this species continues to be cited as O. minuta in several publications on the Black Sea zooplankton (Kovalev, 1984). Sazhina and Kovalev (1971) noted that such nomenclature inconsistency has led to some confusion in taxonomic publications. Moreover, in 1894 the name Oithona (Dioithona) minuta was given by Scott (1894b) to a species with a different morphology and natural habitat than that of O. nana (Shuvalov, 1980). Thus, despite Krichagin (1873) discovered this species, the valid common name for this Black Sea copepod species O. nana (Giesbrecht, 1892) should be accepted and used.” [Nishida: Note that “Krichagin (1873) should be (1877) and Giesbrecht (1892) should be (1891).]
I completely agree with this opinion, since the use of O. minuta instead of O. nana will invite serious confusion in various aspects.
Under this circumstance, based on the Article 23.9.3 of ICZN, it is necessary to propose the Committee to keep the name O. nana as valid and treat the name O. minuta Krichagin as a nomen oblitum.
Actually, in 1985, I examined specimens of O. minuta Krichagin from the Black Sea, identified and sent by Dr. Petipa, and confirmed its similarity to O. nana, but so far I have been unable to make such a proposal to the Committee, due mainly to my negligence.
These are all what I can tell about the status of O. minuta Krichagin, 1977 and O. minuta T. Scott, 1894. Please note that all these are still personal observation and not yet published. [details]
Walter, T.C.; Boxshall, G. (2021). World of Copepods database. Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1877. Accessed at: http://marinespecies.org/copepoda/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1297895 on 2024-04-18
original description
Krichagin, N.A. (1877). Otchet' ob' ekskursii na Sv. bereg' Chernago morya soverskennoi po pozucheniyu Kievskago obshchestva estestvois'pytatelei letom' 1874 g. <em>Zapiski Kiyevskago Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei (Mémoires de la Société des Naturalistes de Kiev).</em> 5(1):1-56, pls. 1-4. [details]
additional source Karavaev, V.A. (1895). Materialy k' faune veslonogikh (Copepoda) Chernago morya. Materials on fauna of Copepoda of the Black Sea. <em>Zapiski Kiyevskago Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei (Mémoires de la Société des Naturalistes de Kiev).</em> 14(1):117-174, pls. 1-3. (1895) (Russian with French summary). [details]
additional source Sazhina, L.I. & A.V. Kovalev. (1971). O sinonimike veslonogikh rakoobraznykh Chernogo morya. A contribution to the synonymy of Copepoda (Crustacea) in the Black Sea. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 50(7):1099-1101, figs. 1-6. (28-vi-1971, Russian with English summary). [details] Available for editors
additional source Shuvalov, V.S. (1980). Veslonogie rachki-tsiklopoidy semeistva Oithonidae mirovogo okeana. (Copepoda crustaceans - Cyclopoida of the family Oithonidae of the world oceans). Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, Nauka, Leningrad 125:1-197, figs. 1-64. (24-v-1980, Russian.) [details] Available for editors
additional source Gubanova, A., D. Altukhov, K. Stefanova, E. Arashkevich, L. Kamurska, I. Prusova, L. Svetlichny, F. Timofte & Z. Uysal. (2014). Species composition of Black Sea marine planktonic copepods. <em>Journal of Marine Systems.</em> 135:44-52., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.12.004 [details] Available for editors
additional source Kovaleva, T.M. (1984). Effect of algae size and concentration on the consumption rate of two species of marine copepods. <em>Ekologiya Morya</em>. 31:20-35. [details]
additional source Giesbrecht, W. (1892-1893). Systematik und Faunistik der pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. <em>Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der Angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte, Herausgegeben von der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel.</em> 19:1-831, pls. 1-54.[published in sections over 2 years, 1892-1893]]., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/798364 [details]
additional source Krichagin, N.A. (1873). Materialy dlya fauny vostochnogo berega Chernago Morya. (Materialen zur Fauna der östlichen Küste des Schwarzen Meeres). Contributions to the knowledge of fauna of the eastern shore of the Black Sea: Copepoda. <em>In: Otchet o faunisticheskikh' isslodovaniya, proizvedennykh' letom' 1872 goda, po porucheniyu Kievskago obshchestva estestvois'pytatelei na vostochnykh beregakh Chernogo morya., Zap. kiev. Obshch. Estest.</em> 3(3):370-429, pls. 10-14. [details]
additional source Karavaev, V.A. (1895). Materialy k' faune veslonogikh (Copepoda) Chernago morya. Materials on fauna of Copepoda of the Black Sea. <em>Zapiski Kiyevskago Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei (Mémoires de la Société des Naturalistes de Kiev).</em> 14(1):117-174, pls. 1-3. (1895) (Russian with French summary). [details]
additional source Sazhina, L.I. & A.V. Kovalev. (1971). O sinonimike veslonogikh rakoobraznykh Chernogo morya. A contribution to the synonymy of Copepoda (Crustacea) in the Black Sea. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 50(7):1099-1101, figs. 1-6. (28-vi-1971, Russian with English summary). [details] Available for editors
additional source Shuvalov, V.S. (1980). Veslonogie rachki-tsiklopoidy semeistva Oithonidae mirovogo okeana. (Copepoda crustaceans - Cyclopoida of the family Oithonidae of the world oceans). Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, Nauka, Leningrad 125:1-197, figs. 1-64. (24-v-1980, Russian.) [details] Available for editors
additional source Gubanova, A., D. Altukhov, K. Stefanova, E. Arashkevich, L. Kamurska, I. Prusova, L. Svetlichny, F. Timofte & Z. Uysal. (2014). Species composition of Black Sea marine planktonic copepods. <em>Journal of Marine Systems.</em> 135:44-52., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.12.004 [details] Available for editors
additional source Kovaleva, T.M. (1984). Effect of algae size and concentration on the consumption rate of two species of marine copepods. <em>Ekologiya Morya</em>. 31:20-35. [details]
additional source Giesbrecht, W. (1892-1893). Systematik und Faunistik der pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. <em>Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der Angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte, Herausgegeben von der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel.</em> 19:1-831, pls. 1-54.[published in sections over 2 years, 1892-1893]]., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/798364 [details]
additional source Krichagin, N.A. (1873). Materialy dlya fauny vostochnogo berega Chernago Morya. (Materialen zur Fauna der östlichen Küste des Schwarzen Meeres). Contributions to the knowledge of fauna of the eastern shore of the Black Sea: Copepoda. <em>In: Otchet o faunisticheskikh' isslodovaniya, proizvedennykh' letom' 1872 goda, po porucheniyu Kievskago obshchestva estestvois'pytatelei na vostochnykh beregakh Chernogo morya., Zap. kiev. Obshch. Estest.</em> 3(3):370-429, pls. 10-14. [details]
From editor or global species database
Taxonomic remark OBSERVATIONS OF SHUHEI NISHIDAOithona minuta Krichagin, 1977
The original description of O. minuta by Krichagin (1977) lacks precision in many respects (e.g. number of setae on appendages), but indicates close resemblance of the species with O. nana Giesbrecht, 1981. If the two species are conspecific, O. minuta should be treated as the valid name and O. nana as a junior synonym. However, detailed comparison of the two species on the basis of the types has not yet been performed. Meanwhile, according to Shuvalov (1980) and Brodsky (1948), O. minuta Krichagin is a senior synonym of O. nana but should be treated as invalid because the name O. nana is much more popular. But Petipa (1970) and Sazhina (1960) used the name O. minuta when they studied the Black-Sea copepods.
More recently Gubanova et al. (2014) mentioned: “Oithona minuta was firstly found in the Black Sea by Krichagin (1873). Giesbrecht (1892), having no knowledge of Krichagin's paper, described the same species from the Mediterranean Sea as O. nana. The latter name was used in copepod publications throughout the world. Nevertheless, this species continues to be cited as O. minuta in several publications on the Black Sea zooplankton (Kovalev, 1984). Sazhina and Kovalev (1971) noted that such nomenclature inconsistency has led to some confusion in taxonomic publications. Moreover, in 1894 the name Oithona (Dioithona) minuta was given by Scott (1894b) to a species with a different morphology and natural habitat than that of O. nana (Shuvalov, 1980). Thus, despite Krichagin (1873) discovered this species, the valid common name for this Black Sea copepod species O. nana (Giesbrecht, 1892) should be accepted and used.” [Nishida: Note that “Krichagin (1873) should be (1877) and Giesbrecht (1892) should be (1891).]
I completely agree with this opinion, since the use of O. minuta instead of O. nana will invite serious confusion in various aspects.
Under this circumstance, based on the Article 23.9.3 of ICZN, it is necessary to propose the Committee to keep the name O. nana as valid and treat the name O. minuta Krichagin as a nomen oblitum.
Actually, in 1985, I examined specimens of O. minuta Krichagin from the Black Sea, identified and sent by Dr. Petipa, and confirmed its similarity to O. nana, but so far I have been unable to make such a proposal to the Committee, due mainly to my negligence.
These are all what I can tell about the status of O. minuta Krichagin, 1977 and O. minuta T. Scott, 1894. Please note that all these are still personal observation and not yet published. [details]
Comments on the status of Oithona minuta Krichagin, 1977 and Oithona minuta T. Scott, 1894 
Note: Written by Shuhei Nishida, 11 Sept. 2020
Note: Written by Shuhei Nishida, 11 Sept. 2020