 |
 |
MarBEF Data System |
 |
|
|
|
WoRMS name details
Nomenclaturebasis of record
Guérin-Méneville, F.E. (1829-1843). Iconographie du régne animal de G. Cuvier. [Representation d'apres nature de l'une des especes les plus remarquables et souvent non encore figurees, de chaque genre d'animaux.Iconography of the animal kingdom by G. Cuvier.]. <em>Planches des Animaux invertébrés. Zoophytes. 2. Crustacées. A. Londres publisher. (Publication began in 1829).</em> :1-48, [ Copepods pl. 35, This plate was published in 1837.]., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27813845
page(s): Page 23. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27812815 [details] 
Other
 Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Spelling Leach, in his original description of the genus, wrote Ampithoe, but most people are convinced that he meant to honour the nymph Amphitoe, and therefore corrected the spelling. As Leach never was explicit, however, this correction is not permitted and the original spelling Ampithoe has to stand.
Many authors, up to Traudl Krapp-Schickel and Denise Bellan-Santini in the 1980's, have continued to use the spelling Amphithoe. And this is the main reason , that the names of later genera, based on the genus name Ampithoe, often have the spelling with the ph: Peramphithoe, Paramphithoe etc. The case of Sunamphitoe is special, as here a further spelling mistake crept in and has now to be perpetuated for ever.
The rules of nomenclature are clear enough, in this case, so that no special rulings have ever been necessary. All the genus names in this family, as in all others, have to be spelled the way their original authors spelled them. But in this family one has to be extra careful to get it right. [details]
|
|
|
|
|
