| About | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Specimens | | Distribution | | Checklist | | Stats | | Log in |
Polychaeta name detailsAmaeana colei (McIntosh, 1926)
332916 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:332916)
uncertain > nomen dubium (probably indeterminable)
Species
Amaea colei McIntosh, 1926 · uncertain > nomen dubium (genus name replaced, and...)
genus name replaced, and indeterminable from description
marine,
recent only
(of Amaea colei McIntosh, 1926) McIntosh, W. C. (1926). Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews. No. 49. 1. On the Structure and Functions of the Operculum and Neighbouring Parts of Mercierella enigmatica, Fauvel, and other Serpulids. 2. On a new British Polychaet [sic]. 3. On a Iarval Siphonophore (?) from the 'Challenger.'. <em>Annals and Magazine of Natural History.</em> (series 9) 18(107): 402-424, plates 13-17., available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00222932608633538
page(s): 421-422, Plate 16 figs. 1-2; note: described from anterior fragment [details]
Holotype (of Amaea colei McIntosh, 1926) missing, ...
Holotype (of Amaea colei McIntosh, 1926) missing, museum & code not known, geounit Port Erin [details]
Taxonomy Nogueira et al (2015:4) state: "Amaeana colei was described based on an anterior fragment of 5–6 segments (McIntosh...
Taxonomy Nogueira et al (2015:4) state: "Amaeana colei was described based on an anterior fragment of 5–6 segments (McIntosh 1926); we could not locate that specimen, but, even if we did, it would still be undeterminable unless complete material from the type locality is found, as with only 5–6 segments it is not possible to determine if the specimen belongs to Amaeana, Lysilla, Polycirrus or even Enoplobranchus, since the differences between those genera are only visible from midbody. Therefore, A. colei is treated herein as nomen nudum." [GBR: the status must be a nomen dubium, not n. nudum] [details]
Read, G.; Fauchald, K. (Ed.) (2021). World Polychaeta Database. Amaeana colei (McIntosh, 1926). Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=332916 on 2024-04-24
Date action by
original description
(of Amaea colei McIntosh, 1926) McIntosh, W. C. (1926). Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews. No. 49. 1. On the Structure and Functions of the Operculum and Neighbouring Parts of Mercierella enigmatica, Fauvel, and other Serpulids. 2. On a new British Polychaet [sic]. 3. On a Iarval Siphonophore (?) from the 'Challenger.'. <em>Annals and Magazine of Natural History.</em> (series 9) 18(107): 402-424, plates 13-17., available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00222932608633538
page(s): 421-422, Plate 16 figs. 1-2; note: described from anterior fragment [details] new combination reference Hartman, Olga. (1959). Catalogue of the Polychaetous Annelids of the World. Parts 1 and 2. <em>Allan Hancock Foundation Occasional Paper.</em> 23: 1-628. page(s): 495; note: new genus name for junior homonym [details] Available for editors  [request] status source Nogueira, João Miguel de Matos; Carrerette, Orlemir; Hutchings, Pat A. (2015). Review of <em>Amaeana</em> Hartman, 1959 (Annelida, Terebelliformia, Polycirridae), with descriptions of seven new species. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 3994(1): 1-52., available online at http://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.3994.1.1 page(s): 4; note: indeterminable from description [details] Available for editors [request]  Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
Holotype (of Amaea colei McIntosh, 1926) missing, museum & code not known, geounit Port Erin [details]
From editor or global species database
Taxonomy Nogueira et al (2015:4) state: "Amaeana colei was described based on an anterior fragment of 5–6 segments (McIntosh 1926); we could not locate that specimen, but, even if we did, it would still be undeterminable unless complete material from the type locality is found, as with only 5–6 segments it is not possible to determine if the specimen belongs to Amaeana, Lysilla, Polycirrus or even Enoplobranchus, since the differences between those genera are only visible from midbody. Therefore, A. colei is treated herein as nomen nudum." [GBR: the status must be a nomen dubium, not n. nudum] [details]
|