WoRMS name details
original description
(of Siphostoma Otto, 1820) Otto, Adolfus Guilielmus. (1820). De Sternaspide thalassemoideo et Siphostomate diplochaito vermibus duobus marinis. [Epistola Gratulatoria quam ad celebrandum diem laetissimum VI Marti MDCCCXX (etc, etc)]. <em>Vratislaviae.</em> pp.16, 2 plates. [details]
basis of record
Grube, A.E. (1840). Actinien, Echinodermen und Würmer des Adriatischen- und Mittelmeers nach eigenen Sammlungen beschrieben. <em>Königsberg: J.H. Bon.</em> 92 pp., 12 figs., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10662919 page(s): 68 ; note: Grube used his own 'Siphonostomum' spelling for the genus of Otto (1820, 1821) [details]
additional source
Haswell, William A. (1892). Observations on the Chloraemidae, with special reference to certain Australian forms. <em>Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales (Second Series).</em> 6: 329-356, plates XXVI-XXVIII., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/6561410 page(s): 329; note: in a footnote Haswell acknowledges his Siphonostoma affine is a junior homonym. However, Haswell here uses Grube's misspelling of 'Siphonostomum' as the genus name, for his own taxon and others. [details]
From editor or global species database
Spelling There is no doubt that Grube was using the genus Siphonostoma Otto, 1821, however, Grube named a new taxon as Siphonostomum papillosum and in the process he changed Otto's (1821) Siphonostoma (first introduced as Siphostoma Otto, 1820) to Siphonostomum, for unknown reasons. It may have been a simple lapsus, as Grube used the heading of "Siphonostomum Otto", so never intended to introduce a new genus. 'Stoma' is a correct transliteration from a neuter Greek noun, but 'stomum' is also widely used as a neuter noun and Grube may have been more familiar with that spelling. [details]
| |