Hydrozoa name details

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorDinema slabberi Van Beneden, 1867

117492  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:117492)

Unaccepted: synonym, or anything that is not accepted unaccepted (unrecognizable, indeterminate species)
Species
marine
Beneden. (1867a). Recherches sur la faune littorale de Belgique : polypes / par P.-J. van Beneden. (look up in IMIS), available online at https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1804 [details]  OpenAccess publication 
Trusted: edited by a thematic editorTaxonomy Unrecognisable species.
Hartlaub (1907)...  
Trusted: edited by a thematic editorTaxonomy Unrecognisable species.
Hartlaub (1907) thought that Haeckel (1879) misidentified a corynid medusa from the Channel coast with Dinema slabberi van Beneden, 1867. Dinema slabberi van Beneden, 1867 clearly belongs to the Pandeidae, and it probably is a synonym of Leuckartiara octona. Although there is no reason to assume that Haeckel had a corynid medusa, Hartlaub (1907) proposed the new name Sarsiella dinema for Haeckel's medusa. Hartlaub even created a new genus based on the assumption that it has only two marginal bulbs. He thought that Dicodonium differed from Sarsiella by having four marginal bulbs. There exists no figure of Haeckel's medusa and it must be considered unrecognisable. I tend to follow the opinion of Mayer (1910: 47) that it was based on an abnormal or mutilated specimen. [details]
Schuchert, P. (2017). Dinema slabberi Van Beneden, 1867. In: Schuchert, P. (2017). World Hydrozoa database. Accessed at http://www.marinespecies.org/hydrozoa/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=117492 on 2017-12-18

Date
action
by
2004-12-21 15:54:05Z
created
2009-05-13 06:57:10Z
changed
2013-02-08 07:58:59Z
changed
2017-09-25 14:32:33Z
changed

original description Beneden. (1867a). Recherches sur la faune littorale de Belgique : polypes / par P.-J. van Beneden. (look up in IMIS), available online at https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1804 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

basis of record van der Land, J.; Vervoort, W.; Cairns, S.D.; Schuchert, P. (2001). Hydrozoa, in: Costello, M.J. et al. (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: pp. 112-120 (look up in IMIS[details]   

additional source Kramp P.L. (1961a). Synopsis of the medusae of the world. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U. K. 40: 1-469., available online at http://www.mba.ac.uk/nmbl/publications/jmba_40/jmba_40.htm [details]  OpenAccess publication 
 
 Present  Inaccurate  Introduced: alien 
 

From regional or thematic species database
Trusted: edited by a thematic editorTaxonomy Unrecognisable species.
Hartlaub (1907) thought that Haeckel (1879) misidentified a corynid medusa from the Channel coast with Dinema slabberi van Beneden, 1867. Dinema slabberi van Beneden, 1867 clearly belongs to the Pandeidae, and it probably is a synonym of Leuckartiara octona. Although there is no reason to assume that Haeckel had a corynid medusa, Hartlaub (1907) proposed the new name Sarsiella dinema for Haeckel's medusa. Hartlaub even created a new genus based on the assumption that it has only two marginal bulbs. He thought that Dicodonium differed from Sarsiella by having four marginal bulbs. There exists no figure of Haeckel's medusa and it must be considered unrecognisable. I tend to follow the opinion of Mayer (1910: 47) that it was based on an abnormal or mutilated specimen. [details]