Porifera name details
Spongia (Spongia) fuscoides Van Soest & Hooper, 2020
1423874 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1423874)
unaccepted (unavailable name)
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
Van Soest, R.W.M.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Butler, P.J. (2020). Every sponge its own name: removing Porifera homonyms. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4745(1): 1-93., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4745.1.1
page(s): 31 [details] Available for editors
[request]
page(s): 31 [details] Available for editors
[request]
Nomenclature We cite here Van Soest et al.'s (2020: 31) explanation for the nomen novum.
Removal of homonymy between Hippospongia fusca...
Removal of homonymy between Hippospongia fusca...
Nomenclature We cite here Van Soest et al.'s (2020: 31) explanation for the nomen novum.
Removal of homonymy between Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814), Amphimedon fusca (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) and Spongia fusca Hyatt, 1877.
1. Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814: 370 (type locality Red Sea or ?Mediterranean). There is no type material of S. communis fusca Lamarck remaining at MNHN Paris, nor did Topsent (1931: 10) comment on any of the three varieties of Lamarck’s species communis, including fusca, aside from Topsent (1933: 48) noting that the three varieties as “S. communis et var. α-γ” all belong to Hippospongia communis, and furthermore declares H. communis (Lamarck) to be a senior synonym of Spongia equina Schmidt, 1862. It is also uncertain whether Lamarck intended fusca to be a variety of the species communis (he did not use a term like ‘variety’), or a trinomen as was customary before Linnaeus (1758). The former is likely based on the consistency of Topsent’s revisions of Lamarck’s collection, treating varieties independently (e.g. Spongia bullata = Siphonochalina bullata (Lam.) and Spongia bullata var. β = Siphonochalina tubulosa (Esper)), and so we can treat fusca as a taxon in the sense of the ICZN (Art. 57.2), as Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814) comb. nov., which remains incertae sedis.
2. Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864: 38 (type locality St. Thomas and Tortola, Eastern Caribbean). Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 is a potential junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814 (ICZN Art. 57.2), but the former species was synonymised with Amphimedon complanata (Duchassaing, 1850) (Van Soest 1980: 31), and homonymy is removed by the synonym being in a different genus and species, so no new name is necessary.
3. Spongia agaricina subsp. corlosia (sic) var. fusca Hyatt, 1877: 524 (type locality Key West, Florida). Spongia agaricina subsp. corlosia (sic) var. fusca Hyatt, 1877 (corlosia being a misprint for coelosia Duchassaing & Michelott, 1864) is a junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814, and also a junior primary homonym of Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864, which necessitated a new name (ICZN Art. 57.2). Hyatt’s (1877) variety name fusca is not ‘in use’ so ICZN Art. 23.9.5 cannot be invoked. It is Spongia incertae sedis.
4. Summary: Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814) as the senior primary homonym is to be maintained (ICZN Art. 57.2). Amphimedon fusca (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) is a junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck and as a junior synonym of Amphimedon complanata (Duchassaing, 1850) is accepted in a different genus and species than Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814), so homonymy is removed (ICZN Art. 59.2 & 60.2).
N.B. Hyatt’s name is not an available name (as it has a fourth name, ICZN art. 45.5). Apart from Von Lendenfeld’s assignment of this to Euspongia officinalis var. rotunda (Hyatt, 1877 as Spongia officinalis subsp. tubulifera var. rotunda, q.v.), Van Soest et al. 2020 erroneously erected a new name (Spongia fuscoides, q.v.) for this taxon as a junior homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814. Because Hyatt’s name is not available it cannot come into homonymy with an available name (ICZN art. 54.1). Hyatt was apparently unaware that Duchassaing & Michelotti corrected the name corlosia to coelosia in the Errata at the end of their book (p. 122). Thus, in accordance with ICZN art. 32.5.1.1 the name must be spelled coelosia. The WPD lists Spongia (Spongia) coelosia as ‘accepted’ but it is incertae sedis (q.v.). Van Soest (2024) proposed to assign Hyatt’ [details]
Removal of homonymy between Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814), Amphimedon fusca (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) and Spongia fusca Hyatt, 1877.
1. Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814: 370 (type locality Red Sea or ?Mediterranean). There is no type material of S. communis fusca Lamarck remaining at MNHN Paris, nor did Topsent (1931: 10) comment on any of the three varieties of Lamarck’s species communis, including fusca, aside from Topsent (1933: 48) noting that the three varieties as “S. communis et var. α-γ” all belong to Hippospongia communis, and furthermore declares H. communis (Lamarck) to be a senior synonym of Spongia equina Schmidt, 1862. It is also uncertain whether Lamarck intended fusca to be a variety of the species communis (he did not use a term like ‘variety’), or a trinomen as was customary before Linnaeus (1758). The former is likely based on the consistency of Topsent’s revisions of Lamarck’s collection, treating varieties independently (e.g. Spongia bullata = Siphonochalina bullata (Lam.) and Spongia bullata var. β = Siphonochalina tubulosa (Esper)), and so we can treat fusca as a taxon in the sense of the ICZN (Art. 57.2), as Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814) comb. nov., which remains incertae sedis.
2. Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864: 38 (type locality St. Thomas and Tortola, Eastern Caribbean). Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 is a potential junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814 (ICZN Art. 57.2), but the former species was synonymised with Amphimedon complanata (Duchassaing, 1850) (Van Soest 1980: 31), and homonymy is removed by the synonym being in a different genus and species, so no new name is necessary.
3. Spongia agaricina subsp. corlosia (sic) var. fusca Hyatt, 1877: 524 (type locality Key West, Florida). Spongia agaricina subsp. corlosia (sic) var. fusca Hyatt, 1877 (corlosia being a misprint for coelosia Duchassaing & Michelott, 1864) is a junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814, and also a junior primary homonym of Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864, which necessitated a new name (ICZN Art. 57.2). Hyatt’s (1877) variety name fusca is not ‘in use’ so ICZN Art. 23.9.5 cannot be invoked. It is Spongia incertae sedis.
4. Summary: Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814) as the senior primary homonym is to be maintained (ICZN Art. 57.2). Amphimedon fusca (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) is a junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck and as a junior synonym of Amphimedon complanata (Duchassaing, 1850) is accepted in a different genus and species than Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814), so homonymy is removed (ICZN Art. 59.2 & 60.2).
N.B. Hyatt’s name is not an available name (as it has a fourth name, ICZN art. 45.5). Apart from Von Lendenfeld’s assignment of this to Euspongia officinalis var. rotunda (Hyatt, 1877 as Spongia officinalis subsp. tubulifera var. rotunda, q.v.), Van Soest et al. 2020 erroneously erected a new name (Spongia fuscoides, q.v.) for this taxon as a junior homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814. Because Hyatt’s name is not available it cannot come into homonymy with an available name (ICZN art. 54.1). Hyatt was apparently unaware that Duchassaing & Michelotti corrected the name corlosia to coelosia in the Errata at the end of their book (p. 122). Thus, in accordance with ICZN art. 32.5.1.1 the name must be spelled coelosia. The WPD lists Spongia (Spongia) coelosia as ‘accepted’ but it is incertae sedis (q.v.). Van Soest (2024) proposed to assign Hyatt’ [details]
de Voogd, N.J.; Alvarez, B.; Boury-Esnault, N.; Cárdenas, P.; Díaz, M.-C.; Dohrmann, M.; Downey, R.; Goodwin, C.; Hajdu, E.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Kelly, M.; Klautau, M.; Lim, S.C.; Manconi, R.; Morrow, C.; Pinheiro, U.; Pisera, A.B.; Ríos, P.; Rützler, K.; Schönberg, C.; Turner, T.; Vacelet, J.; van Soest, R.W.M.; Xavier, J. (2024). World Porifera Database. Spongia (Spongia) fuscoides Van Soest & Hooper, 2020. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/porifera/porifera.php?p=taxdetails&id=1423874 on 2024-11-03
Date
action
by
original description
Van Soest, R.W.M.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Butler, P.J. (2020). Every sponge its own name: removing Porifera homonyms. <em>Zootaxa.</em> 4745(1): 1-93., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4745.1.1
page(s): 31 [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): 29 [details] Available for editors [request]
page(s): 31 [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): 29 [details] Available for editors
[request]From editor or global species database
Nomenclature We cite here Van Soest et al.'s (2020: 31) explanation for the nomen novum.Removal of homonymy between Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814), Amphimedon fusca (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) and Spongia fusca Hyatt, 1877.
1. Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814: 370 (type locality Red Sea or ?Mediterranean). There is no type material of S. communis fusca Lamarck remaining at MNHN Paris, nor did Topsent (1931: 10) comment on any of the three varieties of Lamarck’s species communis, including fusca, aside from Topsent (1933: 48) noting that the three varieties as “S. communis et var. α-γ” all belong to Hippospongia communis, and furthermore declares H. communis (Lamarck) to be a senior synonym of Spongia equina Schmidt, 1862. It is also uncertain whether Lamarck intended fusca to be a variety of the species communis (he did not use a term like ‘variety’), or a trinomen as was customary before Linnaeus (1758). The former is likely based on the consistency of Topsent’s revisions of Lamarck’s collection, treating varieties independently (e.g. Spongia bullata = Siphonochalina bullata (Lam.) and Spongia bullata var. β = Siphonochalina tubulosa (Esper)), and so we can treat fusca as a taxon in the sense of the ICZN (Art. 57.2), as Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814) comb. nov., which remains incertae sedis.
2. Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864: 38 (type locality St. Thomas and Tortola, Eastern Caribbean). Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 is a potential junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814 (ICZN Art. 57.2), but the former species was synonymised with Amphimedon complanata (Duchassaing, 1850) (Van Soest 1980: 31), and homonymy is removed by the synonym being in a different genus and species, so no new name is necessary.
3. Spongia agaricina subsp. corlosia (sic) var. fusca Hyatt, 1877: 524 (type locality Key West, Florida). Spongia agaricina subsp. corlosia (sic) var. fusca Hyatt, 1877 (corlosia being a misprint for coelosia Duchassaing & Michelott, 1864) is a junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814, and also a junior primary homonym of Spongia fusca Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864, which necessitated a new name (ICZN Art. 57.2). Hyatt’s (1877) variety name fusca is not ‘in use’ so ICZN Art. 23.9.5 cannot be invoked. It is Spongia incertae sedis.
4. Summary: Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814) as the senior primary homonym is to be maintained (ICZN Art. 57.2). Amphimedon fusca (Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864) is a junior primary homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck and as a junior synonym of Amphimedon complanata (Duchassaing, 1850) is accepted in a different genus and species than Hippospongia fusca (Lamarck, 1814), so homonymy is removed (ICZN Art. 59.2 & 60.2).
N.B. Hyatt’s name is not an available name (as it has a fourth name, ICZN art. 45.5). Apart from Von Lendenfeld’s assignment of this to Euspongia officinalis var. rotunda (Hyatt, 1877 as Spongia officinalis subsp. tubulifera var. rotunda, q.v.), Van Soest et al. 2020 erroneously erected a new name (Spongia fuscoides, q.v.) for this taxon as a junior homonym of Spongia communis fusca Lamarck, 1814. Because Hyatt’s name is not available it cannot come into homonymy with an available name (ICZN art. 54.1). Hyatt was apparently unaware that Duchassaing & Michelotti corrected the name corlosia to coelosia in the Errata at the end of their book (p. 122). Thus, in accordance with ICZN art. 32.5.1.1 the name must be spelled coelosia. The WPD lists Spongia (Spongia) coelosia as ‘accepted’ but it is incertae sedis (q.v.). Van Soest (2024) proposed to assign Hyatt’ [details]
