Copepoda name details
Halectinosoma Lang, 1944
534140 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:534140)
unaccepted (Genus group name made available by Vervoort (1962))
Genus
Halectinosoma sarsi Boeck, 1873 (type by original designation)
marine
Taxonomy Halectinosoma Lang, 1944 (Family Ectinosomatidae)
Lang (1944: 6) divided the genus Ectinosoma Boeck, 1865 into two...
Lang (1944: 6) divided the genus Ectinosoma Boeck, 1865 into two...
Taxonomy Halectinosoma Lang, 1944 (Family Ectinosomatidae)
Lang (1944: 6) divided the genus Ectinosoma Boeck, 1865 into two subgenera, Ectinosoma (type: Ectinosoma melaniceps Boeck, 1865) and the newly proposed Halectinosoma for which he did not fix a type. Although Lang (1944) designated a type for each of the two species-groups delimited within this latter subgenus, viz., the sarsii-group (type: Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873) and the curticorne-group (type: Ectinosoma curticorne Boeck, 1873), the subgenus Halectinosoma was denoted by an unavailable name and remained so in Lang’s (1948: 194) monograph. Lang (1944) did not include any other species in these groups but expanded them significantly in his 1948 monograph by adding twelve species to the sarsii-group and six to the curticorne-group. To the former group of species he referred Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873; Tachidius abrau Kri agin, 1878; Ectinosoma chrystalii T. Scott, 1894a; E. propinquum Scott & Scott, 1896; E. herdmani Scott & Scott, 1896; E. armiferum Scott & Scott, 1896; E. finmarchicum T. Scott, 1903a; E. neglectum Sars, 1904a; E. elongatum Sars, 1904a; E. brunnea Brady, 1907 (an incorrect original spelling of brunneum); E. proximum Sars, 1919; E. angulifrons Sars, 1919; and E. tenerum Sars, 1920a. As has been pointed out by Karanovic and Pesce (2001), Vervoort (1962: 399) explicitly fixed Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873 as type species of the subgenus Halectinosoma. Lang (1965: 11), who upgraded Halectinosoma to generic status, did not mention Vervoort’s (1962) designation. Halectinosoma is available from Vervoort (1962), who cited (p. 255) the diagnosis for Halectinosoma in Lang (1944: 6) in this connection and designated a type species, and it takes the authorship Halectinosoma Vervoort, 1962 (ICZN Arts 13.1.1 and 13.3).
There are, however, a number of unresolved issues associated with the name:
(1) Boeck’s (1873) original description of the type species Halectinosoma sarsii (Boeck, 1873) is poor and lacks information on the structure of the maxilla and maxilliped, which are used to distinguish between the very closely related genera Halectinosoma and Pseudobradya Sars, 1904a (Huys et al. 1996). According to Clément and Moore (1995: 256) it is uncertain whether the species belongs to Halectinosoma and consequently it should be placed as species incertae sedis in the genus. According to ICZN Art. 67.2.5, a nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was cited as a species incertae sedis, however since Halectinosoma sarsii was not cited with that status by Vervoort (1962), his type fixation cannot be invalidated on that ground. According to Scott and Scott (1896) the new species described as Ectinosoma spinipes by Brady (1880a: 9–10, Plate XXXVI, figs. 1–10) is a junior subjective synonym of Ectinosoma sarsii but like many other earlier records of H. sarsii this identification is probably incorrect (Clément & Moore 1995). Most workers have adopted Sars’s (1904a: 30, Plate XVI) redescription of Ectinosoma sarsii as the standard of reference for correct identification but Clément and Moore (1995) showed there were major discrepancies between Sars’s material and the original description given by Boeck (1873) and consequently renamed it Halectinosoma pseudosarsi. There are no verifiable published records of Ectinosoma sarsii since Boeck’s (1873) type material no longer exists.
(2) Since H. sarsii cannot be the objective standard of reference for the application of the name Halectinosoma, another species, which can best serve stability and universality, should be fixed. Dussart and Defaye (1988: 11) inadvertently cited Tachidius abrau Kri agin, 1878 as the type species but, being one of the very few freshwater species of the genus, it is not representative. A ruling by the Commission will be required to set aside the respective type designations by Vervoort (1962) and Dussart and Defaye (1988) and fix a new type species for this genus.
(3) The genus [details]
Lang (1944: 6) divided the genus Ectinosoma Boeck, 1865 into two subgenera, Ectinosoma (type: Ectinosoma melaniceps Boeck, 1865) and the newly proposed Halectinosoma for which he did not fix a type. Although Lang (1944) designated a type for each of the two species-groups delimited within this latter subgenus, viz., the sarsii-group (type: Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873) and the curticorne-group (type: Ectinosoma curticorne Boeck, 1873), the subgenus Halectinosoma was denoted by an unavailable name and remained so in Lang’s (1948: 194) monograph. Lang (1944) did not include any other species in these groups but expanded them significantly in his 1948 monograph by adding twelve species to the sarsii-group and six to the curticorne-group. To the former group of species he referred Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873; Tachidius abrau Kri agin, 1878; Ectinosoma chrystalii T. Scott, 1894a; E. propinquum Scott & Scott, 1896; E. herdmani Scott & Scott, 1896; E. armiferum Scott & Scott, 1896; E. finmarchicum T. Scott, 1903a; E. neglectum Sars, 1904a; E. elongatum Sars, 1904a; E. brunnea Brady, 1907 (an incorrect original spelling of brunneum); E. proximum Sars, 1919; E. angulifrons Sars, 1919; and E. tenerum Sars, 1920a. As has been pointed out by Karanovic and Pesce (2001), Vervoort (1962: 399) explicitly fixed Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873 as type species of the subgenus Halectinosoma. Lang (1965: 11), who upgraded Halectinosoma to generic status, did not mention Vervoort’s (1962) designation. Halectinosoma is available from Vervoort (1962), who cited (p. 255) the diagnosis for Halectinosoma in Lang (1944: 6) in this connection and designated a type species, and it takes the authorship Halectinosoma Vervoort, 1962 (ICZN Arts 13.1.1 and 13.3).
There are, however, a number of unresolved issues associated with the name:
(1) Boeck’s (1873) original description of the type species Halectinosoma sarsii (Boeck, 1873) is poor and lacks information on the structure of the maxilla and maxilliped, which are used to distinguish between the very closely related genera Halectinosoma and Pseudobradya Sars, 1904a (Huys et al. 1996). According to Clément and Moore (1995: 256) it is uncertain whether the species belongs to Halectinosoma and consequently it should be placed as species incertae sedis in the genus. According to ICZN Art. 67.2.5, a nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was cited as a species incertae sedis, however since Halectinosoma sarsii was not cited with that status by Vervoort (1962), his type fixation cannot be invalidated on that ground. According to Scott and Scott (1896) the new species described as Ectinosoma spinipes by Brady (1880a: 9–10, Plate XXXVI, figs. 1–10) is a junior subjective synonym of Ectinosoma sarsii but like many other earlier records of H. sarsii this identification is probably incorrect (Clément & Moore 1995). Most workers have adopted Sars’s (1904a: 30, Plate XVI) redescription of Ectinosoma sarsii as the standard of reference for correct identification but Clément and Moore (1995) showed there were major discrepancies between Sars’s material and the original description given by Boeck (1873) and consequently renamed it Halectinosoma pseudosarsi. There are no verifiable published records of Ectinosoma sarsii since Boeck’s (1873) type material no longer exists.
(2) Since H. sarsii cannot be the objective standard of reference for the application of the name Halectinosoma, another species, which can best serve stability and universality, should be fixed. Dussart and Defaye (1988: 11) inadvertently cited Tachidius abrau Kri agin, 1878 as the type species but, being one of the very few freshwater species of the genus, it is not representative. A ruling by the Commission will be required to set aside the respective type designations by Vervoort (1962) and Dussart and Defaye (1988) and fix a new type species for this genus.
(3) The genus [details]
Walter, T.C. & Boxshall, G. (2018). World of Copepods database. Halectinosoma Lang, 1944. Accessed at: http://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=534140 on 2018-05-25
additional source
Huys, R. (2009). Unresolved cases of type fixation, synonymy and homonymy in harpacticoid copepod nomenclature (Crustacea: Copepoda). Zootaxa. 2183:1-99., available online at http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/2/zt02183p099.pdf [details] Available for editors 
From editor or global species database
Taxonomy Halectinosoma Lang, 1944 (Family Ectinosomatidae)Lang (1944: 6) divided the genus Ectinosoma Boeck, 1865 into two subgenera, Ectinosoma (type: Ectinosoma melaniceps Boeck, 1865) and the newly proposed Halectinosoma for which he did not fix a type. Although Lang (1944) designated a type for each of the two species-groups delimited within this latter subgenus, viz., the sarsii-group (type: Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873) and the curticorne-group (type: Ectinosoma curticorne Boeck, 1873), the subgenus Halectinosoma was denoted by an unavailable name and remained so in Lang’s (1948: 194) monograph. Lang (1944) did not include any other species in these groups but expanded them significantly in his 1948 monograph by adding twelve species to the sarsii-group and six to the curticorne-group. To the former group of species he referred Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873; Tachidius abrau Kri agin, 1878; Ectinosoma chrystalii T. Scott, 1894a; E. propinquum Scott & Scott, 1896; E. herdmani Scott & Scott, 1896; E. armiferum Scott & Scott, 1896; E. finmarchicum T. Scott, 1903a; E. neglectum Sars, 1904a; E. elongatum Sars, 1904a; E. brunnea Brady, 1907 (an incorrect original spelling of brunneum); E. proximum Sars, 1919; E. angulifrons Sars, 1919; and E. tenerum Sars, 1920a. As has been pointed out by Karanovic and Pesce (2001), Vervoort (1962: 399) explicitly fixed Ectinosoma sarsii Boeck, 1873 as type species of the subgenus Halectinosoma. Lang (1965: 11), who upgraded Halectinosoma to generic status, did not mention Vervoort’s (1962) designation. Halectinosoma is available from Vervoort (1962), who cited (p. 255) the diagnosis for Halectinosoma in Lang (1944: 6) in this connection and designated a type species, and it takes the authorship Halectinosoma Vervoort, 1962 (ICZN Arts 13.1.1 and 13.3).
There are, however, a number of unresolved issues associated with the name:
(1) Boeck’s (1873) original description of the type species Halectinosoma sarsii (Boeck, 1873) is poor and lacks information on the structure of the maxilla and maxilliped, which are used to distinguish between the very closely related genera Halectinosoma and Pseudobradya Sars, 1904a (Huys et al. 1996). According to Clément and Moore (1995: 256) it is uncertain whether the species belongs to Halectinosoma and consequently it should be placed as species incertae sedis in the genus. According to ICZN Art. 67.2.5, a nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was cited as a species incertae sedis, however since Halectinosoma sarsii was not cited with that status by Vervoort (1962), his type fixation cannot be invalidated on that ground. According to Scott and Scott (1896) the new species described as Ectinosoma spinipes by Brady (1880a: 9–10, Plate XXXVI, figs. 1–10) is a junior subjective synonym of Ectinosoma sarsii but like many other earlier records of H. sarsii this identification is probably incorrect (Clément & Moore 1995). Most workers have adopted Sars’s (1904a: 30, Plate XVI) redescription of Ectinosoma sarsii as the standard of reference for correct identification but Clément and Moore (1995) showed there were major discrepancies between Sars’s material and the original description given by Boeck (1873) and consequently renamed it Halectinosoma pseudosarsi. There are no verifiable published records of Ectinosoma sarsii since Boeck’s (1873) type material no longer exists.
(2) Since H. sarsii cannot be the objective standard of reference for the application of the name Halectinosoma, another species, which can best serve stability and universality, should be fixed. Dussart and Defaye (1988: 11) inadvertently cited Tachidius abrau Kri agin, 1878 as the type species but, being one of the very few freshwater species of the genus, it is not representative. A ruling by the Commission will be required to set aside the respective type designations by Vervoort (1962) and Dussart and Defaye (1988) and fix a new type species for this genus.
(3) The genus [details]
Loading...