| About | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Specimens | | Distribution | | Checklist | | Stats | | Log in |
WoRMS name detailsEuclymene amphistoma (Lamarck, 1818)
1616296 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1616296)
uncertain > taxon inquirendum (unused because Verrill incorrectly changed the Euclymene type species to Clymene oerstedii)
Species
Clymene amphistoma Lamarck, 1818 · unaccepted > superseded combination (Type of Euclymene. Well figured...)
Type of Euclymene. Well figured in Savigny, but has inexplicably been regarded as indeterminable
marine,
recent only
(of Clymene amphistoma Lamarck, 1818) Lamarck, [J.-B. M.] de. (1818). <i>Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres</i>. Tome cinquième, 612 pp. Paris, Deterville/Verdière. , available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879
page(s): 341 [details]
Type locality contained in Red Sea
type locality contained in Red Sea [from synonym] [view taxon] [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2025). World Polychaeta Database. Euclymene amphistoma (Lamarck, 1818). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1616296 on 2025-05-03
Date action by
Nomenclatureoriginal description
(of Clymene amphistoma Lamarck, 1818) Lamarck, [J.-B. M.] de. (1818). <i>Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres</i>. Tome cinquième, 612 pp. Paris, Deterville/Verdière. , available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879
page(s): 341 [details]  Present Present in aphia/obis/gbif/idigbio Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Editor's comment Logically the combination Euclymene amphistoma must exist as Clymene amphistoma is the type species of genus Euclymene, although it appears no one has used the combination in literature (due to mistaken action by Verrill in not naming C. amphistoma as the type species of Verrill's replacement name, Euclymene. Possibly Clymene amphistoma is a nomen oblitum, but McIntosh (1915) has three usages of the name, in which he first suggests the species is an Isocirrus, then he gives Grube's definition (23 chaetigers, 3 pre-anal) and a few pages later he suggests it is senior to Nicomache maculata. It is doubtful if these mentions qualify as usages as a valid name. [details]
|
