WoRMS name details
Eucratea wallaysii Westendorp, 1843
153845 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:153845)
uncertain > taxon inquirendum (From the description I am uncertain if it is a bryozoan.)
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Westendorp, G.D. (1843). Recherches sur les Polypiers flexibles de la Belgique, et particulièrement des environs d'Ostende. <i>Annales de la Société Médico-Chirurgicale de Bruges IV</i>: 5-48, 1 plate (look up in IMIS) [details] 
Bock, P. (2025). World List of Bryozoa. Eucratea wallaysii Westendorp, 1843. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=153845 on 2025-04-06
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License
Nomenclature
original description
Westendorp, G.D. (1843). Recherches sur les Polypiers flexibles de la Belgique, et particulièrement des environs d'Ostende. <i>Annales de la Société Médico-Chirurgicale de Bruges IV</i>: 5-48, 1 plate (look up in IMIS) [details]
basis of record Westendorp, G.D. (1843). Recherches sur les Polypiers flexibles de la Belgique, et particulièrement des environs d'Ostende. <i>Annales de la Société Médico-Chirurgicale de Bruges IV</i>: 5-48, 1 plate (look up in IMIS) [details]
basis of record Westendorp, G.D. (1843). Recherches sur les Polypiers flexibles de la Belgique, et particulièrement des environs d'Ostende. <i>Annales de la Société Médico-Chirurgicale de Bruges IV</i>: 5-48, 1 plate (look up in IMIS) [details]
Present Present in aphia/obis/gbif/idigbio Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Validity The illustration of Eucratea wallaysii suggests that it is not only not a species of Eucratea, but not even a bryozoan. The branching is wrong. The other drawings on the page are reasonably well depicted so the one of E. wallaysii should be taken to be more or less accurate. But he doesn't indicate zooids, the internodes are of unequal width, and branching is not uniformly dichotomous (if this really were Eucratea). Could he have mistakenly depicted an alga? [details]
