WoRMS taxon details
Paracratis M. Huber, 2010
868234 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:868234)
accepted
Genus
Limopsis natalis Barnard, 1964 accepted as Paracratis natalis (Barnard, 1964) (type by original designation)
Limopsis (Paracratis) M. Huber, 2010 · unaccepted > superseded rank
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent + fossil
(of Limopsis (Paracratis) M. Huber, 2010) Huber, M. (2010). <i>Compendium of bivalves. A full-color guide to 3,300 of the world's marine bivalves. A status on Bivalvia after 250 years of research</i>. Hackenheim: ConchBooks. 901 pp., 1 CD-ROM. (look up in IMIS)
page(s): 586 [details]
page(s): 586 [details]
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite...
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia Dall, 1908 and Nipponolimopsis Habe 1951, thus assigning generic status to former subgenera. Beu (2006) again accepted the only genus Limopsis. Huber (2010) acknowledged the morphological groups distinguished by Oliver, but treated them as subgenera and added two further new subgenera.
This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors (including Paractatis), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors (including Paractatis), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
MolluscaBase eds. (2024). MolluscaBase. Paracratis M. Huber, 2010. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=868234 on 2024-10-02
Date
action
by
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
(of Limopsis (Paracratis) M. Huber, 2010) Huber, M. (2010). <i>Compendium of bivalves. A full-color guide to 3,300 of the world's marine bivalves. A status on Bivalvia after 250 years of research</i>. Hackenheim: ConchBooks. 901 pp., 1 CD-ROM. (look up in IMIS)
page(s): 586 [details]
status source Janssen, R. (2015). A review of the Oligocene Limopsidae of the North Sea Basin (Mollusca: Bivalvia). <em>Geologica Saxonica.</em> 61 (1): 7-33., available online at https://www.senckenberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/02_geologica-saxonica61-1_2015_janssen.pdf [details] Available for editors
[request]
page(s): 586 [details]
status source Janssen, R. (2015). A review of the Oligocene Limopsidae of the North Sea Basin (Mollusca: Bivalvia). <em>Geologica Saxonica.</em> 61 (1): 7-33., available online at https://www.senckenberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/02_geologica-saxonica61-1_2015_janssen.pdf [details] Available for editors
[request] From editor or global species database
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia Dall, 1908 and Nipponolimopsis Habe 1951, thus assigning generic status to former subgenera. Beu (2006) again accepted the only genus Limopsis. Huber (2010) acknowledged the morphological groups distinguished by Oliver, but treated them as subgenera and added two further new subgenera.This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors (including Paractatis), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
