WoRMS taxon details
Aspalima Iredale, 1929
761899 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:761899)
accepted
Genus
Limopsis erecta Hedley & Petterd, 1906 accepted as Aspalima erecta (Hedley & Petterd, 1906) (type by original designation)
Crenulilimopsis Kuroda & T. Habe, 1971 · unaccepted > junior subjective synonym
Limopsis (Aspalima) Iredale, 1929 · unaccepted > superseded rank
- Species Aspalima affinis (A. E. Verrill, 1885)
- Species Aspalima crenata (A. Adams, 1863)
- Species Aspalima cristata (Jeffreys, 1876)
- Species Aspalima erecta (Hedley & Petterd, 1906)
- Species Aspalima friedbergi (Glibert & van de Poel, 1965)
- Species Aspalima galatheae (Knudsen, 1970)
- Species Aspalima idonea Iredale, 1929
- Species Aspalima intermedia (P. G. Oliver & J. A. Allen, 1980)
- Species Aspalima lanceolata (P. G. Oliver & J. A. Allen, 1980)
- Species Aspalima lata (E. A. Smith, 1885)
- Species Aspalima longipilosa (Pelseneer, 1903)
- Species Aspalima mabilliana (Dall, 1908)
- Species Aspalima panamensis (Dall, 1902)
- Species Aspalima perieri (P. Fischer in de Folin & Périer, 1870)
- Species Aspalima pyrenoides (Oliver & Cosel in Cosel, 1995)
- Species Aspalima scabra (Thiele, 1912)
- Species Aspalima spicata (Oliver & Allen, 1980)
- Species Aspalima tasmani (Dell, 1956)
- Species Aspalima solator Iredale, 1931 accepted as Aspalima erecta (Hedley & Petterd, 1906) (junior subjective synonym)
marine
recent + fossil
Iredale, T. (1929). Mollusca from the continental shelf of eastern Australia. No 2. <em>Records of the Australian Museum.</em> 17(4): 157-189 [4 September 1929]., available online at http://australianmuseum.net.au/journal/Iredale-1929-Rec-Aust-Mus-174-157189
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
[request]
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
[request]
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 Aspalima), 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 Aspalima), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
MolluscaBase eds. (2024). MolluscaBase. Aspalima Iredale, 1929. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=761899 on 2024-10-12
Date
action
by
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
Iredale, T. (1929). Mollusca from the continental shelf of eastern Australia. No 2. <em>Records of the Australian Museum.</em> 17(4): 157-189 [4 September 1929]., available online at http://australianmuseum.net.au/journal/Iredale-1929-Rec-Aust-Mus-174-157189
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors [request]
original description (of Crenulilimopsis Kuroda & T. Habe, 1971) Kuroda, T., Habe, T. & Oyama, K. (1971). The sea shells of Sagami Bay collected by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan. Maruzen Co., Tokyo. pp. i–xix, 1–741 (Japanese), 121 pls., 1–489 (English), 1–51 (index).
page(s): 339 [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): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
[request] original description (of Crenulilimopsis Kuroda & T. Habe, 1971) Kuroda, T., Habe, T. & Oyama, K. (1971). The sea shells of Sagami Bay collected by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan. Maruzen Co., Tokyo. pp. i–xix, 1–741 (Japanese), 121 pls., 1–489 (English), 1–51 (index).
page(s): 339 [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 Aspalima), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
