Difference between revisions of "Baltisphaeridium multipilosum Appendix A"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | <I><B>multipilosum</B></I> ([[Eisenack, 1931]], p.111, pl.5, figs.20 | + | <I><B>multipilosum</B></I> ([[Eisenack, 1931]], p.111, pl.5, figs.20–22 ex [[Eisenack, 1938a]], p.12) [[Eisenack, 1959]], p.197. Holotype: [[Eisenack, 1931]], pl.5, fig.22, as <I>[[Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum Appendix A|Ovum hispidum]]</I> subsp. <I>[[Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum Appendix A|multipilosum]]</I>, lost according to [[Eisenack, 1959|Eisenack (1959]], p.197). Neotype: [[Eisenack, 1959]], pl.15, fig.11, designated by [[Eisenack, 1959|Eisenack (1959]], p.197). Originally <I>[[Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum Appendix A|Ovum hispidum]]</I> subsp. <I>[[Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum Appendix A|multipilosum]]</I> (name not validly published, Appendix A), subsequently <I>[[Hystrichosphaeridium multipilosum]]</I>, thirdly (and now) <I>Baltisphaeridium multipilosum</I>. This combination was not validly published in [[Eisenack, 1958b|Eisenack (1958b]], p.400), since that author did not fully reference the basionym. The name <I>[[Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum Appendix A|Ovum hispidum]]</I> subsp. <I>[[Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum Appendix A|multipilosum]]</I> was not validly published in [[Eisenack, 1931|Eisenack (1931]]) since the specific name <I>[[Ovum hispidum Appendix A|Ovum hispidum]]</I> was not validly published. Age: Silurian. |
[[Category:Index2004]] | [[Category:Index2004]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:00, 21 December 2016
multipilosum (Eisenack, 1931, p.111, pl.5, figs.20–22 ex Eisenack, 1938a, p.12) Eisenack, 1959, p.197. Holotype: Eisenack, 1931, pl.5, fig.22, as Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum, lost according to Eisenack (1959, p.197). Neotype: Eisenack, 1959, pl.15, fig.11, designated by Eisenack (1959, p.197). Originally Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum (name not validly published, Appendix A), subsequently Hystrichosphaeridium multipilosum, thirdly (and now) Baltisphaeridium multipilosum. This combination was not validly published in Eisenack (1958b, p.400), since that author did not fully reference the basionym. The name Ovum hispidum subsp. multipilosum was not validly published in Eisenack (1931) since the specific name Ovum hispidum was not validly published. Age: Silurian.
Parent: Baltisphaeridium_Appendix A
Infrataxon List: