| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsCylichnatys Kuroda & Habe, 1952
1265740 (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:1265740)
unaccepted > nomen nudum
Genus
marine,
recent + fossil
Check list . . . marine Moll. Japan. Tokyo
page(s): 51 [details]
Taxonomic remark From Oskars et al., 2019: Cylichnatys was originally erected by Kuroda and Habe (1952: 51) without mentioning a single...
Taxonomic remark From Oskars et al., 2019: Cylichnatys was originally erected by Kuroda and Habe (1952: 51) without mentioning a single descriptive character or including a reference to a study, which according to Article 13 of the ICZN (1999) makes it a nomen nudum. However, Habe (1952: 142, 145, 147, pl. 20, 21, figs 14, 31, 32) validated the genus after including a brief description and figures of shell, radula, and gizzard plates of a Japanese specimen following ICZN (1999: Articles 20, 51). The holotype is badly damaged, but a complete image of the type shell described by Gould (1859) was presented by Johnson (1964: 41, pl. 5, fig. 1). This shell was already damaged at that time, but seems consistent with the descriptions of this genus by Habe (1952: 145, pl. 20, fig. 14), Burn (1978: 100, 103, figs 11, 12, 18) and Chaban and Chernyshev (2014: 42, pl. 1A). [details]
IRMNG (2024). Cylichnatys Kuroda & Habe, 1952. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1265740 on 2024-06-12
Date action by
original description
Check list . . . marine Moll. Japan. Tokyo
page(s): 51 [details] basis of record Neave, S. A. and successors. (1939-2004). Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1-10 online. [developed by uBio, hosted online at MBLWHOI Library]. , available online at http://ubio.org/NomenclatorZoologicus/ [details] basis of record Brands, S. J. (compiler). (1989-2005). Systema Naturae 2000. Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2006 version). Originally available online at http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/; for current information, refer http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/ProjectDescription.aspx . [details] source of synonymy Oskars, T. R.; Too, C. C.; Rees, D.; Mikkelsen, P. M.; Willassen, E.; Malaquias, M. A. E. (2019). A molecular phylogeny of the gastropod family Haminoeidae sensu lato (Heterobranchia: Cephalaspidea): a generic revision. <em>Invertebrate Systematics.</em> 33(2): 426-472., available online at https://doi.org/10.1071/is18051 [details] status source Oskars, T. R.; Too, C. C.; Rees, D.; Mikkelsen, P. M.; Willassen, E.; Malaquias, M. A. E. (2019). A molecular phylogeny of the gastropod family Haminoeidae sensu lato (Heterobranchia: Cephalaspidea): a generic revision. <em>Invertebrate Systematics.</em> 33(2): 426-472., available online at https://doi.org/10.1071/is18051 [details] verified source for family WoRMS (Mar 2013) [details] name verified source Neave, S. A. and successors. (1939-2004). Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1-10 online. [developed by uBio, hosted online at MBLWHOI Library]. , available online at http://ubio.org/NomenclatorZoologicus/ [details] extant flag source Sepkoski, J. J., Jr. (2002). A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. <em>Bulletins of American Paleontology.</em> 363, 1-560. [details] habitat flag source Sepkoski, J. J., Jr. (2002). A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. <em>Bulletins of American Paleontology.</em> 363, 1-560. [details] From other sources
Taxonomic remark From Oskars et al., 2019: Cylichnatys was originally erected by Kuroda and Habe (1952: 51) without mentioning a single descriptive character or including a reference to a study, which according to Article 13 of the ICZN (1999) makes it a nomen nudum. However, Habe (1952: 142, 145, 147, pl. 20, 21, figs 14, 31, 32) validated the genus after including a brief description and figures of shell, radula, and gizzard plates of a Japanese specimen following ICZN (1999: Articles 20, 51). The holotype is badly damaged, but a complete image of the type shell described by Gould (1859) was presented by Johnson (1964: 41, pl. 5, fig. 1). This shell was already damaged at that time, but seems consistent with the descriptions of this genus by Habe (1952: 145, pl. 20, fig. 14), Burn (1978: 100, 103, figs 11, 12, 18) and Chaban and Chernyshev (2014: 42, pl. 1A). [details]
|
