| Introduction | | Species lists | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Literature | | Distributions | | Statistics | | Editors | | Match taxa | | Webservice | | Log in |
WoRMS taxon detailsSorbeoconcha
382203 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:382203)
Ponder & Lindberg, 1997
accepted
Subterclass
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Ponder, W. F.; Lindberg, D. R. (1997). Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 119: 83-265., available online at https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/119/2/83/2684302 [details]
MolluscaBase eds. (2025). MolluscaBase. Sorbeoconcha. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=382203 on 2025-07-09
Date action by 2009-08-13 07:23:33Z changed db_admin
Nomenclatureoriginal description
Ponder, W. F.; Lindberg, D. R. (1997). Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using morphological characters. <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 119: 83-265., available online at https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/119/2/83/2684302 [details]
 Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Classification Sorbeoconcha should include [Cerithioidea + Campaniloidea + all Hypsogastropoda (i.e. the remaining Caenogastropoda)], see definition in Ponder & Lindberg, 1997: 225, not only [Cerithioidea + Campaniloidea] as suggested by the indent pattern in Bouchet & Rocroi. Neotaenioglossa Haller, 1892 suggested in Ruud Bank’s draft for Fauna Europaea is not retained because it would need severe emendation to remove Pyramidellids, Cerithioids, etc.. included in its original definition, and therefore would be too far from Haller's concept if it were to fit the concept of Sorbeoconcha. Although cladistically sound, the taxon Sorbeoconcha is skipped in the classification scheme because (1) ten years after its publication, the name still sounds unfamiliar to most and (2) it is not very helpful in the classification because it includes the bulk of Caenogastropoda (only keeping out small stem groups Abyssochrysidae, Provannidae, and the architaenioglossate taxa). This is not final, opinions are welcome. [details]
|
