 |
 |
MarBEF Data System |
 |
|
|
|
WoRMS taxon details
original description
Bruguière, J. G. (1789-1792). <i>Encyclopédie méthodique ou par ordre de matières. Histoire naturelle des vers</i>, volume 1. Paris: Pancoucke. Pp. i-xviii, 1-344 [Livraison 32, June 1789]; 345-757 [Livraison 48, 13 Feb. 1792] [Dates after Evenhuis, 2003, <i>Zootaxa</i>, 166: 37; <i>Zootaxa</i>, 207, some modified by Evenhuis & Petit 2003 Zootaxa 207:1-4]. , available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8892006
page(s): 44 [details]
original description
(of Pleione Lamarck, 1818) Lamarck, J.B. (1818). [volume 5 of] Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, préséntant les caractères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des principales espèces qui s'y rapportent; precedes d'une Introduction offrant la determination des caracteres essentiels de l'Animal, sa distinction du vegetal et desautres corps naturels, enfin, l'Exposition des Principes fondamentaux de la Zoologie. <em>Paris, Deterville.</em> vol 5: 612 pp., available online at http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12886879
page(s): 329 [details]
original description
(of Asloegia Kinberg, 1867) Kinberg, Johan Gustaf Hjalmar. (1867). Om Amphinomernas systematik. <em>Öfversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar, Stockholm.</em> 24(3): 83-91., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32326623
page(s): 89; note: There is only a short description of the genus, nothing for the species [details] 
original description
(of Colonianella Kinberg, 1867) Kinberg, Johan Gustaf Hjalmar. (1867). Om Amphinomernas systematik. <em>Öfversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar, Stockholm.</em> 24(3): 83-91., available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32326623
page(s): 89; note: erected for Colonianella rostrata [details]
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) [details]
additional source
Day, J. H. (1967). [Errantia] A monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa. Part 1. Errantia. British Museum (Natural History), London. pp. vi, 1–458, xxix., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/8596 [details]
redescription
Borda, Elizabeth; Kudenov, Jerry D.; Bienhold, Christina; Rouse, Greg W. (2012). Towards a revised Amphinomidae (Annelida, Amphinomida): description and affinities of a new genus and species from the Nile Deep-sea Fan, Mediterranean Sea. <em>Zoologica Scripta.</em> 41(3): 307-325., available online at http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2012.00529.x
page(s): 314; note: restrict genus diagnosis to a heart-shaped caruncle, with unidentate neurohooks in adults, chaetiger 1 dorsally complete [details] Available for editors  [request]
 Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Diagnosis Original diagnosis by Bruguière (1789: 44): "Genre de vers marins de la famille des vers molusques, qui a pour caractère un corps oblong, articulé & rampant, une bouche & un anus séparés, placés aux deux extrémités, une crète charnue au-dessus de l'extrémité supérieure, deux rangs de branchies ramifiées sur toute la longueur du dos." [details]
Editor's comment Amphinome genus type species There seems to be some confused interpretation in recent literature of the nomenclatural history of Amphinome. Here is a clarification. Aphrodita rostrata Pallas is the type species of Amphinome. Bruguière included four Aphrodita species of Pallas in his new genus Amphinome, but superfluously gave two of them replacement names, A. capillata for Aphrodita flava, and A. tetraedra for Aphrodita rostrata. These replacement names are effectively unjustified emendations of Pallas's epithets (species names simply cannot be renamed ad lib) and become invalid objective synonyms of the original names (but would be available names for nomenclature if required). It is important to understand that they are not representing new taxa that enter subjective synonymy. Two other Aphrodita, A. complanata, and A. carunculata were legitimately recombined in Amphinome by Bruguière, although today they belong elsewhere as type species of Eurythoe and Hermodice respectively, and the third original Amphinome, Aphrodita flava, became type species of Chloeia.
Bruguière did not designate an Amphinome type species, but the only possible Amphinome type species is thus the only originally included species remaining, which is Aphrodita rostrata Pallas 1766. This is as given in the Hartman catalogue (1959:128) and the Fauchald genera guide (1977:102), and earlier designated, or at least made obvious, by Kinberg (1867). The inclusion in Borda et al (2012:312, 315) of Kinberg as apparent author of the valid type species, Aphrodita rostrata (now Amphinome rostrata), is a simple mistake. The statement of Borda et al (2012:312) that "Bruguière first listed Amphinome (Aphrodita) flava Pallas 1766 as a nominal type of Amphinome" is puzzling as all included species are potential types, and listing order is unimportant. [comments of G. Read, February 2016] [details]
Etymology Named after a Nereid of Tethys to indicate the genus is analogous to but differing from nereids. Bruguière 1789 wrote: "Ce nom, suivant les mythologistes, est celui d'une néréide de la suite de Téthys : nous l'avons adopté de préférence à tout autre, afin de mieux indiquer la grande analogie que ces vers nous paroissent avoir avec ceux du genre des néréides, dont ils different cependant à bien des égards" [details]
Taxonomy Borda et al (2012: 315) suggest that Amphinome rostrata may be the only valid species of the genus, although indicating more re-examination of available types is needed. Borda et al (2012: 314) proposed "the removal of the following species from Amphinome sensu stricto, as emended earlier, and declare them incertae sedis" These species are Amphinome abhortoni Quatrefages 1866, Amphinome alba Baird in McIntosh 1895, Amphinome anatifera Krishnamoorthi & Daniel 1950, Amphinome coccinea Renier 1804, Amphinome denudata Quatrefages 1866, Amphinome djiboutiensis Gravier 1902, Amphinome eolides Lamarck 1818, Amphinome latissima Schmarda 1861, Amphinome maldivensis Potts 1909, Amphinome microcarunculata Treadwell 1901, Amphinome nigrobranchiata Horst 1912, Amphinome pallida Quatrefages 1865, Amphinome philippensis Grube 1878, Amphinome stylifera Grube 1860, Amphinome umbo Grube 1870. These species can be placed as incertae sedis, however, those that are original combinations in Amphinome obviously cannot be removed from Amphinome, regardless that their original descriptions might not fit the concept defined by the type species Amphinome rostrata.
Some of the suggested incertae sedis do have types, including those of Quatrefages. The following are reported at MNHN by Solis-Weiss et al (2004:S2) : Amphinome abhortoni Quatrefages, 1866, Mauritius; Amphinome bruguieresi Quatrefages, 1866, Seychelles; Amphinome denudata Quatrefages, 1866, New Caledonia; Amphinome djiboutiensis Gravier, 1901, Djibouti; Amphinome pallasii Quatrefages, 1866, Antilles; Amphinome pallida Quatrefages, 1866, locality unknown; Amphinome savignyi Brullé, 1832, Sicily. [details]
Type species In WoRMS the type species of Amphinome has always been recorded as Aphrodita rostrata Pallas, 1766. There is no obvious issue in nomenclature that would replace Pallas's Aphrodita rostrata name as type species of Amphinome. The presentation of Kinberg as apparent author of the valid species, Amphinome rostrata, as adopted in Borda et al 2012:312 for the type species of Amphinome, is incorrect (see the Amphinome rostrata record for further information) The species name comes only from Pallas, one hundred years earlier. [details]
|
|
|
|
|
