Anisotoma nigripennis, Reitter, 1884: 109
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4741.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2F901615-D948-4C68-81E9-75282F594BAF |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4476173 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4E4F5B3F-FFBD-871E-FF75-CDBDFE49F646 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Anisotoma nigripennis |
status |
|
A. nigripennis Reitter, 1884: 109 View in CoL
(in footnote of key); Hatch, 1929b: 57; Wheeler, 1979a: 303 (as incertae sedis). No information about types in original description [or in Wheeler, 1979a].
Holotype (sex not given) in NHMW(?) [doubtful as in Peck et al., 1998a: 53].
Type locality: Mendoza, [assumed Argentina (by Blackwelder, 1944: 84, but Hatch, 1929b: 57 did not mention a country as he usually did and simply stated “ Mendoza ”), but maybe Panama, in Wheeler, 1979a, who comments the latter placement “would be more harmonious with other species distributions”].
Note 1: Doubtful generic placement and doubtful locality ( Wheeler, 1979a: 303).
Note 2: The original description was made in a footnote as “*) Dieser Art steht ausserordentlich nahe: A. nigripennis n. sp., …”, just after the genus Amphicyllis , which came after the key for Anisotoma , which started in previous page. No “*” (as a reference to a foot note) appears on these pages. Hatch, 1929b: 57 lists in full “ Anisotoma nigripennis ” (“assuming” this genus and not the other), maybe based on a previous publication not known to us.
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 |