| About | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Specimens | | Distribution | | Checklist | | Stats | | Log in |
Polychaeta taxon detailsAmphiglena Claparède, 1864
129521 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:129521)
accepted
Genus
Amphiglena armandi Claparède, 1864 accepted as Amphiglena mediterranea (Leydig, 1851) (type by monotypy)
marine,
recent only
feminine
Claparède, Édouard. (1864). Glanures zootomiques parmi les annélides de Port-Vendres (Pyrénées Orientales). <em>Mémoires de la Société de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genève.</em> 17(2): 463-600, plates I-VIII., available online at https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1972
page(s): 492 [details]
Note [Editor comment] There seems to be confusion...
Type species [Editor comment] There seems to be confusion both over the type species of Amphiglena, and over who designated it (Claparède himself or Bush much later). Determining the type species is of most importance. The simplest interpretation is that Amphiglena armandi Claparède, 1864 is the type by monotypy as the only species included in the new genus. The complication influencing all analysts of the situation is that Claparède had later synonymised his new species, Amphiglena armandi, to Amphicora mediterranea right at the end of his 1864 work (p.588) as an afterthought by writing: "Le ver cephalobranche decrit dans ce memoire sous le nom d’Amphiglene Armandi a deja recu de M. Leydig le nom d'Amphicora mediterranea, dans un memoire' qui m'avait echappe, parce qu'il est principalement consacre a l'etude de mollusques. Le nom specifique donne par M. Leydig doit donc etre conserve par droit de priorit." Claparède had given a good long description with figures, Leydig had given a shorter description without body figures. The additional comment of Claparède in his belated “Rectification” should not change what name is the type species for Amphiglena. Code article 68.3, 'Type species by monotypy' states "Fixation [is by monotypy]. regardless of any cited synonyms [etc]". Nevertheless, various authors state the type was designated by Bush subsequently (as here by Capa & Rouse, 2007) "Type species. Amphiglena mediterranea Leydig, 1851 designated by Bush (1905)." [Note that the combination would be the original one of Amphicora mediterranea, not the recombination in Amphiglena]. Earlier Rouse (1994: 194) had stated "Type Species.-Amphicora mediterranea Leydig, 1851, designated by Claparede (1864)", and he correctly pointed out Bush had not designated it. The Hartman catalogue (1959: 535) has Amphiglena mediterranea as the type, illustrating Hartman's presentation policy of using the currently valid name (the senior subjective synonym) as the type. This is not correct practice today (original names must be used), and may lead to erroneous interpretations. The most recent statement still maintaining that Amphicora mediterranea is the type species of Amphiglena is by Tilic, Feerst & Rouse (2019: 337). Concerning attributing type designation to Bush (1905), the oddest aspect is that Bush (1905: 188) correctly and clearly stated A. armandi was type. She wrote: "Type, A. armandi Claparède 1864, figures, = A. mediterranea (Leydig, 1851)". Thus she lists the type and that it is a junior synonym. This is a standard way of presenting the names and their relationship. Based on that entry it is hard to see why Bush would be interpreted as the subsequent designator of A. mediterranea as type. Most importantly, there was only one original species in the genus, thus monotypy is the only option for a type designation. It does not matter for this purpose that Amphiglena armandi is also becoming a junior synonym via the second thoughts that Claparède had (presumably after the genus and species description text had already been typeset.). Clearly, given the possible cryptic diversity in the genus, if the Claparède change of opinion in synonymising his just-created species was subsequently found to be wrong, and the two names were NOT synonyms (this is possible as the collection localities were well-separated by hundreds of kilometres) the valid name would be A. armandi, and the species A. mediterranea would be irrelevant for this issue. Also more than one cryptic Amphiglena could now occur in the same place (Port Vendres), and we would never know which Claparède had looked at. These potential scenarios should be borne in mind for understanding why the older name A mediterranea logically cannot be the type of the genus, and is less important in this context. It is only a subjective senior synonym of the type. [G. Read, July 2019] [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2021). World Polychaeta database. Amphiglena Claparède, 1864. Accessed at: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=129521 on 2024-04-24
Date action by
original description
Claparède, Édouard. (1864). Glanures zootomiques parmi les annélides de Port-Vendres (Pyrénées Orientales). <em>Mémoires de la Société de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genève.</em> 17(2): 463-600, plates I-VIII., available online at https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1972
page(s): 492 [details] taxonomy source Capa, Maria; Rouse, Greg W. (2007). Phylogenetic relationships within Amphiglena Claparede, 1864 (Polychaeta : Sabellidae), description of five new species from Australia, a new species from Japan, and comments on previously described species. <em>Journal of Natural History.</em> 41(5-8): 327-356., available online at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00222930701194938 [details] Available for editors  [request] taxonomy source Tilic, Ekin; Feerst, Kathryn; Rouse, Greg W. (2019). Two new species of <em>Amphiglena </em>(Sabellidae, Annelida), with an assessment of hidden diversity in the Mediterranean. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4648(2): 337-353., available online at https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4648.2.8 [details] Available for editors [request] taxonomy source Tilic, Ekin; Sayyari, Erfan; Stiller, Josefin; Mirarab, Siavash; Rouse, Greg W. (2020). More is needed—Thousands of loci are required to elucidate the relationships of the 'flowers of the sea' (Sabellida, Annelida). <em>Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.</em> 151: 106892: 1-9., available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790320301640 page(s): 7 of 9; note: moved to new tribe Amphiglinini [details] Available for editors [request] additional source Glasby, Christopher J.; Read, Geoffrey B.; Lee, Kenneth E.; Blakemore, R.J.; Fraser, P.M.; Pinder, A.M.; Erséus, C.; Moser, W.E.; Burreson, E.M.; Govedich, F.R.; Davies, R.W.; Dawson, E.W. (2009). Phylum Annelida: bristleworms, earthworms, leeches. <em>[Book chapter].</em> Chapt 17, pp. 312-358. in: Gordon, D.P. (Ed.) (2009). New Zealand inventory of biodiversity: 1. Kingdom Animalia: Radiata, Lophotrochozoa, Deuterostomia. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch. [details] Available for editors [request] additional source Fauchald, K. (1977). The polychaete worms, definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. <em>Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: Los Angeles, CA (USA), Science Series.</em> 28:1-188., available online at http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/123110.pdf [details] additional source Bellan, G. (2001). Polychaeta, <i>in</i>: Costello, M.J. <i>et al.</i> (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. <em>Collection Patrimoines Naturels.</em> 50: 214-231. (look up in IMIS) note: checklist for Europe [details] From editor or global species database
Type species [Editor comment] There seems to be confusion both over the type species of Amphiglena, and over who designated it (Claparède himself or Bush much later). Determining the type species is of most importance. The simplest interpretation is that Amphiglena armandi Claparède, 1864 is the type by monotypy as the only species included in the new genus. The complication influencing all analysts of the situation is that Claparède had later synonymised his new species, Amphiglena armandi, to Amphicora mediterranea right at the end of his 1864 work (p.588) as an afterthought by writing: "Le ver cephalobranche decrit dans ce memoire sous le nom d’Amphiglene Armandi a deja recu de M. Leydig le nom d'Amphicora mediterranea, dans un memoire' qui m'avait echappe, parce qu'il est principalement consacre a l'etude de mollusques. Le nom specifique donne par M. Leydig doit donc etre conserve par droit de priorit." Claparède had given a good long description with figures, Leydig had given a shorter description without body figures. The additional comment of Claparède in his belated “Rectification” should not change what name is the type species for Amphiglena. Code article 68.3, 'Type species by monotypy' states "Fixation [is by monotypy]. regardless of any cited synonyms [etc]". Nevertheless, various authors state the type was designated by Bush subsequently (as here by Capa & Rouse, 2007) "Type species. Amphiglena mediterranea Leydig, 1851 designated by Bush (1905)." [Note that the combination would be the original one of Amphicora mediterranea, not the recombination in Amphiglena]. Earlier Rouse (1994: 194) had stated "Type Species.-Amphicora mediterranea Leydig, 1851, designated by Claparede (1864)", and he correctly pointed out Bush had not designated it. The Hartman catalogue (1959: 535) has Amphiglena mediterranea as the type, illustrating Hartman's presentation policy of using the currently valid name (the senior subjective synonym) as the type. This is not correct practice today (original names must be used), and may lead to erroneous interpretations. The most recent statement still maintaining that Amphicora mediterranea is the type species of Amphiglena is by Tilic, Feerst & Rouse (2019: 337). Concerning attributing type designation to Bush (1905), the oddest aspect is that Bush (1905: 188) correctly and clearly stated A. armandi was type. She wrote: "Type, A. armandi Claparède 1864, figures, = A. mediterranea (Leydig, 1851)". Thus she lists the type and that it is a junior synonym. This is a standard way of presenting the names and their relationship. Based on that entry it is hard to see why Bush would be interpreted as the subsequent designator of A. mediterranea as type. Most importantly, there was only one original species in the genus, thus monotypy is the only option for a type designation. It does not matter for this purpose that Amphiglena armandi is also becoming a junior synonym via the second thoughts that Claparède had (presumably after the genus and species description text had already been typeset.). Clearly, given the possible cryptic diversity in the genus, if the Claparède change of opinion in synonymising his just-created species was subsequently found to be wrong, and the two names were NOT synonyms (this is possible as the collection localities were well-separated by hundreds of kilometres) the valid name would be A. armandi, and the species A. mediterranea would be irrelevant for this issue. Also more than one cryptic Amphiglena could now occur in the same place (Port Vendres), and we would never know which Claparède had looked at. These potential scenarios should be borne in mind for understanding why the older name A mediterranea logically cannot be the type of the genus, and is less important in this context. It is only a subjective senior synonym of the type. [G. Read, July 2019] [details] |