Difference between revisions of "Rhombodinium vozzhennikovae"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ?<B><I>vozzhennikovae</I></B> Williams et al., 2015, p.311. Holotype: [[Vozzhennikova, 1960]], pl.3, fig.1, lost according to [[Lentin and Vozzhennikova, 1989|Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989]], p.215-216). Substitute name for <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> [[Vozzhennikova, 1967]], p.104-105. Originally <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I>, subsequently (and now) <I>Rhombodinium</I>? <I>vozzhennikovae</I>. Questionable assignment: Williams et al. (2015, p.311). Williams et al. (2015) proposed <I>Rhombodinium</I>? <I>vozzhennovae</I> as a substitute name for <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> [[Vozzhennikova, 1967]], p.104-105 as the epithet <I>majus</I> (al. <I>major</I>) is already occupied by <I>[[Rhombodinium majus|Rhombodinium]]</I>? <I>[[Rhombodinium majus|majus]]</I> Yu Jingxian. [[Fensome and Williams, 2004|Fensome and Williams (2004]], p.382) did not follow [[Lentin and Vozzhennikova, 1989|Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989]]) in considering the name <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> to be not validly published; [[Vozzhennikova, 1967|Vozzhennikova (1967]]) provided a description and designated a holotype from [[Vozzhennikova, 1960|Vozzhennikova (1960]]). That the holotype is lost has no bearing on the validity of the name. [[Lentin and Vozzhennikova, 1989|Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989]]) noted that no potential lectotype is available. The name <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> was not valdily published in [[Vozzhennikova, 1963|Vozzhennikova (1963]], fig.15) since that author did not provide a description. Age: Eocene. | + | ?<B><I>vozzhennikovae</I></B> [[Williams et al., 2015]], p.311. Holotype: [[Vozzhennikova, 1960]], pl.3, fig.1, lost according to [[Lentin and Vozzhennikova, 1989|Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989]], p.215-216). Substitute name for <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> [[Vozzhennikova, 1967]], p.104-105. Originally <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I>, subsequently (and now) <I>Rhombodinium</I>? <I>vozzhennikovae</I>. Questionable assignment: [[Williams et al., 2015|Williams et al. (2015]], p.311). [[Williams et al., 2015|Williams et al. (2015]]) proposed <I>Rhombodinium</I>? <I>vozzhennovae</I> as a substitute name for <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> [[Vozzhennikova, 1967]], p.104-105 as the epithet <I>majus</I> (al. <I>major</I>) is already occupied by <I>[[Rhombodinium majus|Rhombodinium]]</I>? <I>[[Rhombodinium majus|majus]]</I> Yu Jingxian. [[Fensome and Williams, 2004|Fensome and Williams (2004]], p.382) did not follow [[Lentin and Vozzhennikova, 1989|Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989]]) in considering the name <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> to be not validly published; [[Vozzhennikova, 1967|Vozzhennikova (1967]]) provided a description and designated a holotype from [[Vozzhennikova, 1960|Vozzhennikova (1960]]). That the holotype is lost has no bearing on the validity of the name. [[Lentin and Vozzhennikova, 1989|Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989]]) noted that no potential lectotype is available. The name <I>[[Kisselevia major]]</I> was not valdily published in [[Vozzhennikova, 1963|Vozzhennikova (1963]], fig.15) since that author did not provide a description. Age: Eocene. |
[[Category:Index2016]] | [[Category:Index2016]] | ||
[[Category:Index2016new]] | [[Category:Index2016new]] | ||
Revision as of 15:46, 7 December 2016
?vozzhennikovae Williams et al., 2015, p.311. Holotype: Vozzhennikova, 1960, pl.3, fig.1, lost according to Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989, p.215-216). Substitute name for Kisselevia major Vozzhennikova, 1967, p.104-105. Originally Kisselevia major, subsequently (and now) Rhombodinium? vozzhennikovae. Questionable assignment: Williams et al. (2015, p.311). Williams et al. (2015) proposed Rhombodinium? vozzhennovae as a substitute name for Kisselevia major Vozzhennikova, 1967, p.104-105 as the epithet majus (al. major) is already occupied by Rhombodinium? majus Yu Jingxian. Fensome and Williams (2004, p.382) did not follow Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989) in considering the name Kisselevia major to be not validly published; Vozzhennikova (1967) provided a description and designated a holotype from Vozzhennikova (1960). That the holotype is lost has no bearing on the validity of the name. Lentin and Vozzhennikova (1989) noted that no potential lectotype is available. The name Kisselevia major was not valdily published in Vozzhennikova (1963, fig.15) since that author did not provide a description. Age: Eocene.
Parent: Rhombodinium