|
|
MarBEF Data System |
|
|
|
|
Porifera name details
original description
Hentschel, E. (1929). Die Kiesel- und Hornschwämme des Nördlichen Eismeers. Pp. 857-1042, pls XII-XIV. <em>In: Römer, F., Schaudinn, F., Brauer, A. & Arndt, W. (Eds), Fauna Arctica. Eine Zusammenstellung der arktischen Tierformen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Spitzbergen-Gebietes auf Grund der Ergebnisse der Deutschen Expedition in das Nördliche Eismeer im Jahre 1898.</em> 5 (4) (G.Fischer, Jena). page(s): 884 [details] Available for editors [request]
basis of record
Van Soest, R.W.M. (2024). Correcting sponge names: nomenclatural update of lower taxa level Porifera. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 5398(1): 1-122., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5398.1.1 page(s): 69 [details] Available for editors [request]
additional source
Van Soest, R.W.M. (2001). Porifera, <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</i>. <em>Collection Patrimoines Naturels.</em> 50: 85-103. (look up in IMIS) [details]
Holotype ZMH, geounit North and East Barents Sea [details]
From editor or global species database
Status The variety described by Hentschel from North Spitsbergen, 1 mile N of Ross Island, 80.8°N 20.3833°E, depth 85 m (holotype in ZMH), and the White Sea, 66.6°N 41.3833°E, depth 54 m (collected by the ‘Deutschen Expedition in das Nördliche Eismeer im Jahre 1898’) was erected primarily on the basis of a single character: the possession of bipocillae, which were lacking in the typical variety described by Lundbeck (1905: 183) from the East Greenland shelf, 72.4167°N 19.55°W, depth 256 m, syntypes ZMUC DEM 18 and 26), and by Levinsen (1887: 360 as Esperella picea) from the Kara Sea, and by Hentschel (1916: 10) from Spitsbergen. Further differences were more subtle: slightly smaller megascleres and anisochelae with a narrow upper half distinct from the broader shape in the typical variety. Burton (1932: 348) discussed the global diversity of species of Iophon and in a footnote he synonymized I. frigidus, (ignoring I.f. var. gracilis), and I. dubius Hansen, 1885 with I. piceum (Vosmaer, 1885) citing observations of the variability in spiculation in species from the southern oceans [I.radiatum Topsent, 1901 and I. proximum (Ridley, 1881)] as evidence for this conclusion. Koltun (1959: 151) largely followed Burton’s example but proposed a more differentiated widespread Arctic species Iophon piceumwith five ‘subspecies’. Of these, he confirmed that Iophon frigidus and the variety I. f. var. gracilis were synonymous with I. piceum dubium (Hansen, 1885) rather than with the typical subspecies. Remarkably, he proposed a subspecies Iophon piceum abipocillum, for a specimen which lacked bipocillae similar to I. frigidum. Koltun’s proposed diversity of largely sympatric ‘subspecies’ is not consistent with current hypotheses about subspecies. Van Soest (2024: 69) was not convinced that Iophon piceum is the senior synonym of I. frigidum, as no comparative studies have been published. Burton’s and Koltun’s opinions are not sufficiently underbuilt. If I. frigidum is a distinct species, I.f. var. gracile cannot be synonymized and prudence dictates a possibly temporary elevation in rank to species level, since the difference (possession of bipocillae) precludes synonymy. Accordingly, Van Soest proposed to name the present variety Iophon gracile Hentschel, 1929. [details]
|
|
|
|
|