Banner
Intro | About | Wiki | Search traits | Data explorer | Literature | Definitions | Sources | Webservices | Statistics | Feedback | Editors | Log in

WoRMS taxon details

Nipponolimopsis T. Habe, 1951

456475  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:456475)

accepted
Genus
Limopsis (Nipponolimopsis) T. Habe, 1951 · unaccepted > superseded rank

Ordering

  • Alphabetically
  • By status

Children Display

marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Habe, T. (1951-1953). Genera of Japanese shells. Pelecypoda and Scaphopoda. Kyoto, Part 1, 1-96 [Feb. 1951]; Part 2, 97-186 [Sept. 1951]; Part 3, 187-278, [279-280] [May 1952]; Part 4, 281-326 [Jan. 1953]. [details] 
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in family Limopsidae. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis...  
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in family Limopsidae. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia and Nipponolimopsis Habe 1951, thus assigning generic status to former subgenera. Beu (2006) again accepted the only genus Limopsis. Huber (2010) acknowledged the morphological groups distinguished by Oliver, but treated them as subgenera and added two further new subgenera.
This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa (including Nipponolimopsis which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors, whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement.  [details]
MolluscaBase eds. (2025). MolluscaBase. Nipponolimopsis T. Habe, 1951. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=456475 on 2025-05-28
Date
action
by
2010-02-11 14:10:23Z
created
2012-01-02 19:16:19Z
changed
2016-03-19 09:10:16Z
changed
2018-02-14 08:30:59Z
changed
2024-08-18 12:26:02Z
changed
2024-08-29 23:16:41Z
changed

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


Nomenclature

original description Habe, T. (1951-1953). Genera of Japanese shells. Pelecypoda and Scaphopoda. Kyoto, Part 1, 1-96 [Feb. 1951]; Part 2, 97-186 [Sept. 1951]; Part 3, 187-278, [279-280] [May 1952]; Part 4, 281-326 [Jan. 1953]. [details] 

Taxonomy

status source Janssen, R. (2015). A review of the Oligocene Limopsidae of the North Sea Basin (Mollusca: Bivalvia). <em>Geologica Saxonica.</em> 61 (1): 7-33., available online at https://www.senckenberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/02_geologica-saxonica61-1_2015_janssen.pdf [details] Available for editors  PDF available [request]

status source Coan E.V., Valentich-Scott P. & Bernard F.R. (2000) <i>Bivalve seashells of western North America. Marine bivalve mollusks from Arctic Alaska to Baja California.</i> Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 764 pp. [details] 

From editor or global species database
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in family Limopsidae. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia and Nipponolimopsis Habe 1951, thus assigning generic status to former subgenera. Beu (2006) again accepted the only genus Limopsis. Huber (2010) acknowledged the morphological groups distinguished by Oliver, but treated them as subgenera and added two further new subgenera.
This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa (including Nipponolimopsis which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors, whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement.  [details]
    Definitions

Loading...