Difference between revisions of "Brigantedinium simplex"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <nowiki>*</nowiki><B><I>simplex</I></B> [[Wall, 1965b]], p.308; text-figs.7,20 ex [[Lentin and Williams, 1993]], p.67. Holotype: [[Wall, 1965b]], text-figs.7,20; [[Eisenack and Kjellström, 1972]], p.187; [[Fensome et al., 1995]], fig.1 | + | <nowiki>*</nowiki><B><I>simplex</I></B> [[Wall, 1965b]], p.308; text-figs.7,20 ex [[Lentin and Williams, 1993]], p.67. Holotype: [[Wall, 1965b]], text-figs.7,20; [[Eisenack and Kjellström, 1972]], p.187; [[Fensome et al., 1995]], fig.1 — p.1785. Originally <I>[[Chytroeisphaeridia]]</I> (name not validly published), subsequently (and now) <I>Brigantedinium</I>. Motile equivalent: <I>Protoperidinium conicoides</I> ([[Paulsen, 1905]]) [[Balech, 1974]], according to [[Harland, 1981|Harland (1981]], p.68). The species name <I>[[Chytroeisphaeridia simplicia]]</I> was not validly published in [[Wall, 1965b|Wall (1965b]], p.308), since that author did not provide a Latin diagnosis, a requirement since this species is based on living material (I.C.N. Article 39). For the same reason, the combination <I>Brigantedinium simplex</I> ([[Wall, 1965b]]) [[Reid, 1977]], p.435 was also not validly published. Harland and Reid in [[Harland et al., 1980|Harland et al. (1980]], p.222–223) provided a Latin diagnosis, but the name <I>Brigantedinium simplex</I> was still not validly published since the generic name <I>Brigantedinium</I> was not validly published at that time. [[Lentin and Williams, 1993|Lentin and Williams (1993]], p.67) validly published the generic name <I>Brigantedinium</I> and the species name <I>Brigantedinium simplex</I> by providing a complete citation to both the protologue and a Latin diagnosis. [[Farr et al., 1986|Farr et al. (1986]], p.18) considered "<I>B</I>. [<I>Brigantedinium</I>] <I>simplex</I> P.C. Reid" to be an illegitimate name since "... cysts of the type species were referred by the author [implying Reid] to an extant species [<I>Protoperidinium conicoides</I>]." As noted by [[Fensome et al., 1995|Fensome et al. (1995]], p.1787), this would only be a possible interpretation if Reid were the validating author. [[Lentin and Williams, 1993|Lentin and Williams (1993]], p.67), when validating this name, followed [[Reid, 1977|Reid (1977]], p.435) in rendering the epithet as "<I>simplex</I>". Age: extant. |
[[Category:Index2016]] | [[Category:Index2016]] | ||
| + | [[Category:HasImage]] | ||
<BR><CENTER>[[Image:Brigantedinium_simplex.jpg|link=]]</CENTER> | <BR><CENTER>[[Image:Brigantedinium_simplex.jpg|link=]]</CENTER> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:15, 30 December 2016
*simplex Wall, 1965b, p.308; text-figs.7,20 ex Lentin and Williams, 1993, p.67. Holotype: Wall, 1965b, text-figs.7,20; Eisenack and Kjellström, 1972, p.187; Fensome et al., 1995, fig.1 — p.1785. Originally Chytroeisphaeridia (name not validly published), subsequently (and now) Brigantedinium. Motile equivalent: Protoperidinium conicoides (Paulsen, 1905) Balech, 1974, according to Harland (1981, p.68). The species name Chytroeisphaeridia simplicia was not validly published in Wall (1965b, p.308), since that author did not provide a Latin diagnosis, a requirement since this species is based on living material (I.C.N. Article 39). For the same reason, the combination Brigantedinium simplex (Wall, 1965b) Reid, 1977, p.435 was also not validly published. Harland and Reid in Harland et al. (1980, p.222–223) provided a Latin diagnosis, but the name Brigantedinium simplex was still not validly published since the generic name Brigantedinium was not validly published at that time. Lentin and Williams (1993, p.67) validly published the generic name Brigantedinium and the species name Brigantedinium simplex by providing a complete citation to both the protologue and a Latin diagnosis. Farr et al. (1986, p.18) considered "B. [Brigantedinium] simplex P.C. Reid" to be an illegitimate name since "... cysts of the type species were referred by the author [implying Reid] to an extant species [Protoperidinium conicoides]." As noted by Fensome et al. (1995, p.1787), this would only be a possible interpretation if Reid were the validating author. Lentin and Williams (1993, p.67), when validating this name, followed Reid (1977, p.435) in rendering the epithet as "simplex". Age: extant.
