 |
 |
MarBEF Data System |
 |
|
|
|
WoRMS name details
original description
Van Beneden, P.J. (1867). Recherches sur la faune littorale de Belgique : polypes. <em>Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Belgique.</em> 36: 1-207., available online at https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1804
page(s): 130, pls 9-10 [details] 
basis of record
van der Land, J.; Vervoort, W.; Cairns, S.D.; Schuchert, P. (2001). Hydrozoa, <B><I>in</I></B>: Costello, M.J. <i>et al.</i> (Ed.) (2001). <i>European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels,</i> 50: pp. 112-120 (look up in IMIS) [details]
additional source
Kramp, P. L. (1961). Synopsis of the medusae of the world. <em>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U. K.</em> 40: 1-469. (look up in IMIS) [details]
From regional or thematic species database
Taxonomy Unrecognisable species.
Hartlaub (1907) thought that Haeckel (1879) misidentified a corynid medusa from the Channel coast with Dinema slabberi van Beneden, 1867. Dinema slabberi van Beneden, 1867 clearly belongs to the Pandeidae, and it probably is a synonym of Leuckartiara octona. Although there is no reason to assume that Haeckel had a corynid medusa, Hartlaub (1907) proposed the new name Sarsiella dinema for Haeckel's medusa. Hartlaub even created a new genus based on the assumption that it has only two marginal bulbs. He thought that Dicodonium differed from Sarsiella by having four marginal bulbs. There exists no figure of Haeckel's medusa and it must be considered unrecognisable. I tend to follow the opinion of Mayer (1910: 47) that it was based on an abnormal or mutilated specimen. [details]Unreviewed
Biology colonial, gonophores (no medusae) [details]
|
|
|
|
|
Present 