Polychaeta name details
original description
Esmark, L. (1874). [Meeting minutes 16 May 1873. Eteonopsis geryonicola]. <em>Forhandlinger fra Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> [volume of 1873-1874]: 497-498., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43854386 [details]
additional source
Esmark, L. (1880). [Meeting minutes of 3 October, 1879. Eteonopsis geryonis]. <em>Forhandlinger fra Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> [volume of 1879]:14 [p.14 of 1879 meeting minutes section]., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40938003 page(s): 14; note: The reported Eteonopsis geryonis is a misspelling of E. geryonicola [details]
redescription
Bidenkap, Olaf. (1895). Systematisk oversigt over Norges Annulata Polychaeta. <em>Forhandlinger fra Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1894(10): 1-142, plates I-III. [i.e., volume for 1894, printed the 1st January 1895; see page 142]., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43710888 page(s): 73, plate 3, fig. 1-3.; note: first true description [details]
new combination reference
Wesenberg-Lund, Elise. (1938). Ophryotrocha geryonicola (Bidenkap) (=Eteonopsis geryonicola Bidenkap) refound and redescribed. <em>Göteborgs Königlich vetenskaps- och vitterhetssamhälles handlingar.</em> (Series B) 6(8): 1-13. page(s): 6; note: placed Eteonopsis as junior to Ophryotrocha [details] Available for editors [request]
status source
Gaston, Gary R.; Benner, David A. (1981). On Dorvilleidae and Iphitimidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) with a redescription of Eteonopsis geryonicola and a new host record. <em>Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.</em> 94(1): 76-87., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34607927 note: authors treat genus as valid, and as authored by Esmark (1874) [details] Available for editors [request]
From editor or global species database
Editor's comment A dubiously available meeting report name, in content not written by Esmark. As the name is not in use it seems unnecessary to invalidate it further, although it might strictly be a nomen nudum until clearly named by Bidenkap (1895). Of modern authors Gaston & Benner (1981) regarded Esmark (1874) as having created an available name. Wesenberg-Lund (1938) credited the authorship to Bidenkap (1895). As the name Eteonopsis first appears in print five years after its subjective synonym, Ophryotrocha Claparède & Mecznikow, 1869, there can be no dispute which is valid by priority. Gaston & Benner (1981) state that "Wesenburg-Lund (1938) must have been unaware
that Esmark provided the original description (albeit poor)", but this is hardly possible as Bidenkap gives the species name authority to Esmark. The alternative is that Wesenberg-Lund did not regard the meeting notes credited to Esmark as establishing an available name [G Read, Jun 2019] [details]
| |