WoRMS name details
Gymnechinus pallidus Koehler, 1927
755792 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:755792)
unaccepted (subjective junior synonym)
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
Koehler, R. (1927). Echinides du Musée Indien á Calcutta, III: Echinides réguliers. <em>Echinoderma of the Indian Museum.</em> 10: 1-158.
page(s): 113-118; pl. 17: figs. 5, 13, 15, pl. 18: figs. 1-6, pl. 19: figs. 2-3, pl. 27: fig. 4 [details] Available for editors
[request]
page(s): 113-118; pl. 17: figs. 5, 13, 15, pl. 18: figs. 1-6, pl. 19: figs. 2-3, pl. 27: fig. 4 [details] Available for editors
[request]
Distribution Ceylon
Status There can hardly be any doubt but that Koehler's Gymnechinus pallidus is identical with G. Robillardi. Neither from the...
Distribution Ceylon [details]
Status There can hardly be any doubt but that Koehler's Gymnechinus pallidus is identical with G. Robillardi. Neither from the...
Status There can hardly be any doubt but that Koehler's Gymnechinus pallidus is identical with G. Robillardi. Neither from the description nor from the illustrations given by Koehler do I gather a single feature distinguishing it from Robillardi, and a direct comparison of a cotype, sent me from the Indian Museum, Calcutta, with my specimens of Robillardi likewise failed to reveal any reliable specific difference between them. KoehIer has carefully compared his G. pallidus with all the other species of Gymnechinus (or, as versicolor, erroneously referred to that genus), excepting alone G. Robillardi, which latter he has evidently quite overlooked. Had he thought of comparing his specimens with Robillardi he would no doubt have realised that they cannot be distinguished from that species. [details]
Kroh, A.; Mooi, R. (2025). World Echinoidea Database. Gymnechinus pallidus Koehler, 1927. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=755792 on 2025-05-06
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License
Nomenclature
original description
Koehler, R. (1927). Echinides du Musée Indien á Calcutta, III: Echinides réguliers. <em>Echinoderma of the Indian Museum.</em> 10: 1-158.
page(s): 113-118; pl. 17: figs. 5, 13, 15, pl. 18: figs. 1-6, pl. 19: figs. 2-3, pl. 27: fig. 4 [details] Available for editors [request]
basis of record Kier, P. M. & Lawson, M. H. 1978. Index of living and fossil echinoids 1924-1970. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 34, 1-182., available online at https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810266.34.1
page(s): 43 [details] Available for editors [request]
page(s): 113-118; pl. 17: figs. 5, 13, 15, pl. 18: figs. 1-6, pl. 19: figs. 2-3, pl. 27: fig. 4 [details] Available for editors
[request]basis of record Kier, P. M. & Lawson, M. H. 1978. Index of living and fossil echinoids 1924-1970. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 34, 1-182., available online at https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810266.34.1
page(s): 43 [details] Available for editors
[request]Taxonomy
status source
Mortensen, T. (1943). A Monograph of the Echinoidea. III, 2. Camarodonta. I. Orthopsidæ, Glyphocyphidæ, Temnopleuridæ and Toxopneustidæ. vii+553 pp., C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen.
page(s): 426-427 [details]
page(s): 426-427 [details]
Present Present in aphia/obis/gbif/idigbio Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
Syntype MCZ 6078, geounit Sri Lankan Exclusive Economic Zone [details]
From editor or global species database
Distribution Ceylon [details]Status There can hardly be any doubt but that Koehler's Gymnechinus pallidus is identical with G. Robillardi. Neither from the description nor from the illustrations given by Koehler do I gather a single feature distinguishing it from Robillardi, and a direct comparison of a cotype, sent me from the Indian Museum, Calcutta, with my specimens of Robillardi likewise failed to reveal any reliable specific difference between them. KoehIer has carefully compared his G. pallidus with all the other species of Gymnechinus (or, as versicolor, erroneously referred to that genus), excepting alone G. Robillardi, which latter he has evidently quite overlooked. Had he thought of comparing his specimens with Robillardi he would no doubt have realised that they cannot be distinguished from that species. [details]
