About | Search taxa | Taxon tree | Search literature | Specimens | Distribution | Checklist | Stats | Log in

Polychaeta name details

Dejoces chilensis (Schmarda, 1861)

340400  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:340400)

 unaccepted (superseded recombination)
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
Depth range 2-3 fathoms (3.6 to 5.5 m).  
Depth range 2-3 fathoms (3.6 to 5.5 m). [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2018). World Polychaeta database. Dejoces chilensis (Schmarda, 1861). Accessed at: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=340400 on 2018-03-20
2008-03-18 12:55:09Z
2008-03-26 11:36:43Z
2014-10-29 23:05:50Z
2014-11-03 01:51:42Z

additional source Hessle, Christian. (1917). Zur Kenntnis der terebellomorphen Polychaeten. Zoologiska bidrag från Uppsala. 5: 39-258, plates I-V., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38891407
page(s): 226 [details]   

new combination reference Kinberg, J.G.H. (1866 [or 1867]). Annulata nova. [Continuatio.]. Öfversigt af Königlich Vetenskapsakademiens förhandlingar, Stockholm. 23(9): 337-357., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32287795
page(s): 348 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

status source Saint-Joseph, Arthur d’Anthoine de. (1894). Les Annélides polychètes des côtes de Dinard. Troisième Partie. Annales des sciences naturelles, Paris, Série 7. 17: 1-395, plates I-XIII., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35662416
page(s): 243 [wrongly has Kinberg as species author] [details]   
From editor or global species database
Authority This was a recombination, not a new taxon. The authorship is (Schmarda), not Kinberg as usually seen. [details]

Depth range 2-3 fathoms (3.6 to 5.5 m). [details]

Habitat Amongst rhizoids of fucoids, at shallow water. [details]

Synonymy Due to an early misunderstanding of Kinberg's recombination entry by Saint-Joseph, followed by subsequent authors, the name was mistakenly listed as a junior homonym of Polycirrus chilensis Schmarda, 1861 in Glasby & Hutchings (2014:115). It is clear in Kinberg that he was recombining Schmarda's species, not creating a new species. This also makes it understandable why no separate type material exists. The only material is Schmarda's Valparaiso holotype. [details]