WoRMS taxon details
Listriolobus Fischer, 1926 [not Spengel, 1912]
264917 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:264917)
accepted
Genus
Listriolobus bahamensis Fischer, 1926 (type by subsequent designation)
- Species Listriolobus bahamensis Fischer, 1926
- Species Listriolobus brevirostris Chen & Yeh, 1958
- Species Listriolobus capensis (Jones & Stephen, 1954)
- Species Listriolobus hexamyotus Fisher, 1949
- Species Listriolobus pelodes Fisher, 1946
- Species Listriolobus sorbillans (Lampert, 1883)
- Species Listriolobus billitonensis Fischer, 1926 accepted as Listriolobus sorbillans (Lampert, 1883) (junior subjective synonym)
- Species Listriolobus bulbocaudatus Edmonds, 1963 accepted as Listriolobus brevirostris Chen & Yeh, 1958 (junior subjective synonym)
- Species Listriolobus riukiuensis Satô, 1939 accepted as Listriolobus sorbillans (Lampert, 1883) (junior subjective synonym)
marine, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
masculine
Fischer, W. (1926). Sipunculiden und Echiuriden der Hamburger Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1909. <em>Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg.</em> 42: 104–117.
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author...
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author of the genus. This would not be possible. Nishikawa (2004) examined the situation. He stated that, although Spengel (1912) failed to make a type designation and did not assign any nominal species to the new genus, this does not make the genus a nomen nudum since proposed before 1931. Spengel gave a definition of the genus, and this was sufficient at the time. However, this is a little doubtful as it seems Listriolobus was applied to a misidentification of Thalassema erythrogrammon. It seems Spengel was NOT transferring T. erythrogrammon to the new genus, thus there was no species for the genus. This is not possible. Fischer (1926) must be the author of the genus (in addition he stated he was). [details]
WoRMS (2025). Listriolobus Fischer, 1926 [not Spengel, 1912]. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=264917 on 2025-04-04
Date
action
by
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License
Nomenclature
original description
Fischer, W. (1926). Sipunculiden und Echiuriden der Hamburger Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1909. <em>Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg.</em> 42: 104–117.
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]
basis of record van der Land, J. (ed). (2008). UNESCO-IOC Register of Marine Organisms (URMO). , available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/urmo/ [details]
page(s): 110; note: Added two species to Spengel's 1912 Listriolobus nomen nudum [details]
basis of record van der Land, J. (ed). (2008). UNESCO-IOC Register of Marine Organisms (URMO). , available online at http://www.marinespecies.org/urmo/ [details]
Taxonomy
taxonomy source
Nishikawa, Teruaki. (2004). Synonymy of the West-Pacific echiuran Listriolobus sorbillans (Echiura: Echiuridae), with taxonomic notes towards a generic revision. <em>Species Diversity.</em> 9(2): 109–123., available online at http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006794426/en [details] Available for editors 
[request]
[request]Other
additional source
Fisher, W. K. (1949). Additions to the echiuroid fauna of the North Pacific Ocean. <em>Proceedings of the United States National Museum.</em> 99(3248): 479–497, plates 28–34., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7728303
note: Emendation (re-diagnosis of genus) [details]
additional source Murina, Vantsetti. List of Echiura. [details]
additional source Satô, H. (1939). Studies on the Echiuroidea, Sipunculoidea and Priapuloidea of Japan. <em>Science Reports of the Tôhoku Imperial University, Fourth Series, Biology.</em> 14 (4): 339–460, plates XIX–XXIII. [details]
subsequent type designation Fisher, W. K. (1946). Echiuroid worms of the North Pacific Ocean. <em>Proceedings of the United States National Museum.</em> 96: 215–292, plates 20–37., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7311441 [details]
note: Emendation (re-diagnosis of genus) [details]
additional source Murina, Vantsetti. List of Echiura. [details]
additional source Satô, H. (1939). Studies on the Echiuroidea, Sipunculoidea and Priapuloidea of Japan. <em>Science Reports of the Tôhoku Imperial University, Fourth Series, Biology.</em> 14 (4): 339–460, plates XIX–XXIII. [details]
subsequent type designation Fisher, W. K. (1946). Echiuroid worms of the North Pacific Ocean. <em>Proceedings of the United States National Museum.</em> 96: 215–292, plates 20–37., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7311441 [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Nomenclature According to Stephen & Edmonds (1972) Listriolobus Spengel, 1912 is a nomen nudum, although they retained Spengel as author of the genus. This would not be possible. Nishikawa (2004) examined the situation. He stated that, although Spengel (1912) failed to make a type designation and did not assign any nominal species to the new genus, this does not make the genus a nomen nudum since proposed before 1931. Spengel gave a definition of the genus, and this was sufficient at the time. However, this is a little doubtful as it seems Listriolobus was applied to a misidentification of Thalassema erythrogrammon. It seems Spengel was NOT transferring T. erythrogrammon to the new genus, thus there was no species for the genus. This is not possible. Fischer (1926) must be the author of the genus (in addition he stated he was). [details]
