Glyphis fuscocrenulata E.A. Smith, 1906
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/afrinvertebr.61.51989 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A507F6C1-EA79-46C0-940F-B0A62BD86A4D |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/68028FBF-A7D7-57B4-AB0F-5323494C7103 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Glyphis fuscocrenulata E.A. Smith, 1906 |
status |
|
Glyphis fuscocrenulata E.A. Smith, 1906
fuscocrenulata E.A. Smith, 1906: 56-57, Pl VIII, fig. 6 [ Glyphis , Port Shepstone and Umkomaas, Natal: 16 ×11.25× 6 mm].
Material examined.
Syntype. South Africa • KwaZulu-Natal, Umkomaas; H.C. Burnup leg.; T524; NMSA-MOL 001270; Fig. 3 View Figure 3 (14.13 ×9.65× 5 mm).
Current status.
Diodora fuscocrenulata (E. A. Smith, 1906); Herbert (2015).
Remarks.
The shell (NMSA-MOL 001270) from Umkomaas and two of three shells (NHMUK: 1906.6.23.15-17) from Port Shepstone in the Natural History Museum (London, UK) were not explicitly mentioned in the original description. The sentence "However, the specimen described appears to be fairly mature" ( Smith 1906: 57) implies that the description was based on one shell, which makes it holotype by monotypy (ICZN 73.1.2.). However, Smith was aware that the shell from Umkomaas belongs to the same species, as indicated in the description: "Hab. - Port Shepstone and Umkomaas, Natal" ( Smith 1906: 57), which suggests that the shell from Umkomaas is part of the type series (see the Example for ICZN 72.4.1.1). We have not made changes in nomenclature and treat all four shells as syntypes, thereby not restricting possibilities in the next taxonomic revision.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Glyphis fuscocrenulata E.A. Smith, 1906
Muratov, Igor V. & Heyns-Veale, Elodie 2020 |
fuscocrenulata
E. A. Smith 1906 |