Difference between revisions of "Carduifolia onopordoides"

From dinoflaj3
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<nowiki>*</nowiki><I><B>onopordoides</B></I> [[Hovasse, 1932a]], p.126, fig.9 ex [[Hovasse, 1932b]], p.469.&nbsp; Holotype: [[Hovasse, 1932a]], fig.9.&nbsp; This name was not validly published in [[Hovasse, 1932a|Hovasse (1932a]]) since the generic name <I>Carduifolia</I> was not validly published until later in 1932.&nbsp; The name <I>Carduifolia onopordoides</I> was not directly cited by [[Hovasse, 1932b|Hovasse (1932b]]), in which publication he validated the generic name <I>Carduifolia</I>.&nbsp; However, given the liberal rules governing citation at that time, we accept the name as validated there, as apparently also did [[Loeblich Jr. and Loeblich III, 1966|Loeblich Jr. and Loeblich III (1966]], p.19).&nbsp; Age: Early Paleocene.
+
<nowiki>*</nowiki><I><B>onopordoides</B></I> [[Hovasse, 1932a]], p.126, fig.9 ex [[Hovasse, 1932b]], p.469.&nbsp; Holotype: [[Hovasse, 1932a]], fig.9.&nbsp; This name was not validly published in [[Hovasse, 1932a|Hovasse (1932a]]) since the generic name <I>Carduifolia</I> was not validly published until later in 1932.&nbsp; The name <I>Carduifolia onopordoides</I> was not directly cited by [[Hovasse, 1932b|Hovasse (1932b]]), in which publication he validated the generic name <I>Carduifolia</I>.&nbsp; However, given the liberal rules governing citation at that time, we accept the name as validated there, as apparently also did [[Loeblich Jr. and Loeblich III, 1966|Loeblich Jr. and Loeblich III (1966]], p.19).&nbsp; Age: early Paleocene.
 
[[Category:Index2004]]
 
[[Category:Index2004]]
  

Latest revision as of 19:07, 21 December 2016

*onopordoides Hovasse, 1932a, p.126, fig.9 ex Hovasse, 1932b, p.469.  Holotype: Hovasse, 1932a, fig.9.  This name was not validly published in Hovasse (1932a) since the generic name Carduifolia was not validly published until later in 1932.  The name Carduifolia onopordoides was not directly cited by Hovasse (1932b), in which publication he validated the generic name Carduifolia.  However, given the liberal rules governing citation at that time, we accept the name as validated there, as apparently also did Loeblich Jr. and Loeblich III (1966, p.19).  Age: early Paleocene.

Parent: Carduifolia