WoRMS name details

Anchialina angustus (G. O. Sars, 1883)

226225  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:226225)

 unaccepted (confused combination in a bibliography?)
Species
marine, fresh, terrestrial
(of Anchialus angustus G.O. Sars, 1883) Sars, G.O. (1883). Preliminary notices on the Schizopoda of H.M.S. Challenger Expedition. <em>Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1883: 7: 1-43. (look up in IMIS) [details] OpenAccess publication
Mees, J.; Meland, K. (Eds) (2012 onwards). World List of Lophogastrida, Stygiomysida and Mysida. Anchialina angustus (G. O. Sars, 1883). Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=226225 on 2024-11-20
Date
action
by
2006-05-10 15:31:07Z
created
db_admin
2010-02-08 12:50:50Z
changed
2024-07-24 01:55:35Z
changed

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


original description (of Anchialus angustus G.O. Sars, 1883) Sars, G.O. (1883). Preliminary notices on the Schizopoda of H.M.S. Challenger Expedition. <em>Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1883: 7: 1-43. (look up in IMIS) [details] OpenAccess publication

basis of record Gordan, J. (1957). A bibliography of the order Mysidacea. <em>Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.</em> 112 (4): 281-393.
page(s): 339; note: see Notes (editor's comment) [details] Available for editors  PDF available [request]

additional source Müller, H. G. (1993). World catalogue and bibliography of the recent Mysidacea. 238p.
note: makes only reference to Gordan's (1957) catalogue, not to usage in primary literature. [details] Available for editors  PDF available [request]
From editor or global species database
Editor's comment This combination seems to have been introduced in mistake in Gordan's (1957) bibliography, where both Parancialina angusta (correctly) and Anchialina angustus (incorrectly) are listed as accepted names based on Anchialus angustus G. O. Sars. No reference to the use of the latter combination (which also shows a disagreement of gender) in primary literature is given, it, and appears it is results from confusion and mixup of the genus names. [details]