WoRMS taxon details
Limopsidae Dall, 1895
- Genus Aspalima Iredale, 1929
- Genus Empleconia Dall, 1908
- Genus Limopsis Sasso, 1827
- Genus Nipponolimopsis T. Habe, 1951
- Genus Oblimopa Iredale, 1939
- Genus Paracratis M. Huber, 2010
- Genus Circlimopa Iredale, 1939 accepted as Oblimopa Iredale, 1939 (synonym)
- Genus Crenulilimopsis Kuroda & T. Habe, 1971 accepted as Aspalima Iredale, 1929 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Felicia Mabille & Rochebrune, 1889 accepted as Limopsis (Felicia) Mabille & Rochebrune, 1889 represented as Limopsis Sasso, 1827
- Genus Glycilima Iredale, 1931 accepted as Limopsis (Glycilima) Iredale, 1931 represented as Limopsis Sasso, 1827
- Genus Loringella Iredale, 1929 accepted as Limopsis (Loringella) Iredale, 1929 represented as Limopsis Sasso, 1827
- Genus Pectunculina A. d'Orbigny, 1844 accepted as Limopsis Sasso, 1827 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Phrynelima Iredale, 1929 accepted as Limopsis (Phrynelima) Iredale, 1929 represented as Limopsis Sasso, 1827
- Genus Senectidens Iredale, 1931 accepted as Limopsis Sasso, 1827 (unaccepted > junior subjective synonym)
- Genus Trigonocaelia [sic] accepted as Trigonocoelia Nyst & Galeotti, 1835 accepted as Limopsis Sasso, 1827 (unaccepted > misspelling - incorrect subsequent spelling)
- Genus Trigonocelia [sic] accepted as Trigonocoelia Nyst & Galeotti, 1835 accepted as Limopsis Sasso, 1827 (unaccepted > misspelling - incorrect subsequent spelling, incorrect subsequent spelling of Trigonocoelia Nyst & Galeotti, 1835)
- Genus Trigonocoelia Nyst & Galeotti, 1835 accepted as Limopsis Sasso, 1827 (unaccepted > junior objective synonym)
- Genus Versipella Iredale, 1931 accepted as Limopsis (Versipella) Iredale, 1931 represented as Limopsis Sasso, 1827 (unaccepted > superseded rank)
marine
Dall, W. H. (1890-1903). Contributions to the Tertiary fauna of Florida with especial reference to the Miocene silex-beds of Tampa and the Pliocene beds of the Caloosahatchie River. <em>Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science.</em> 3(1): 1-200 [1890]; 3(2): 201-474 [1892]; 3(3): 475-570, and plates for part 1: pp. 179-190, pl. 1-12; plates for part 2: pp. 449-458, pl. 13-22 [1895]; 3(4): [i]-viii, 571-948, pl. 23-35; [1898]; 3(5): 949-1218, pl. 36-47 [1900]; 3(6): [i]-xiv, 1219-1654, pl. 48-60 [27 October1903]., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/98240
page(s): 3(3): 517 [details]
page(s): 3(3): 517 [details]
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Whereas Tevesz (1977) accepted two genera,...
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Whereas Tevesz (1977) accepted two genera, Limopsis and Empleconia Dall 1908, Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia 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, 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, whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
MolluscaBase eds. (2024). MolluscaBase. Limopsidae Dall, 1895. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=2093 on 2024-10-31
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
Dall, W. H. (1890-1903). Contributions to the Tertiary fauna of Florida with especial reference to the Miocene silex-beds of Tampa and the Pliocene beds of the Caloosahatchie River. <em>Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science.</em> 3(1): 1-200 [1890]; 3(2): 201-474 [1892]; 3(3): 475-570, and plates for part 1: pp. 179-190, pl. 1-12; plates for part 2: pp. 449-458, pl. 13-22 [1895]; 3(4): [i]-viii, 571-948, pl. 23-35; [1898]; 3(5): 949-1218, pl. 36-47 [1900]; 3(6): [i]-xiv, 1219-1654, pl. 48-60 [27 October1903]., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/98240
page(s): 3(3): 517 [details]
additional source Bieler, R.; Carter, J. G.; Coan, E. V. (2010). Classification of Bivalve families. Pp. 113-133, in: Bouchet P. & Rocroi J.-P. (2010), Nomenclator of Bivalve Families. <em>Malacologia.</em> 52(2): 1-184. [details]
additional 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]
additional source Valentich-Scott, P.; Coan, E. V.; Zelaya, D. (2020). <i>Bivalve seashells of western South America. Marine bivalve mollusks from Punta Aguja, Peru to Isla Chiloé, Chile</i>. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. vii + 593 pp.
page(s): 136-137 [details]
additional source Oliver, P. G. (1981). The functional morphology and evolution of Recent Limopsidae. <em>Malacologia.</em> 21/1-2): 61-93., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13111004 [details]
redescription Coan, E. V.; Valentich-Scott, P. (2012). Bivalve seashells of tropical West America. Marine bivalve mollusks from Baja California to northern Peru. 2 vols, 1258 pp. [details]
page(s): 3(3): 517 [details]
additional source Bieler, R.; Carter, J. G.; Coan, E. V. (2010). Classification of Bivalve families. Pp. 113-133, in: Bouchet P. & Rocroi J.-P. (2010), Nomenclator of Bivalve Families. <em>Malacologia.</em> 52(2): 1-184. [details]
additional 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]additional source Valentich-Scott, P.; Coan, E. V.; Zelaya, D. (2020). <i>Bivalve seashells of western South America. Marine bivalve mollusks from Punta Aguja, Peru to Isla Chiloé, Chile</i>. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. vii + 593 pp.
page(s): 136-137 [details]
additional source Oliver, P. G. (1981). The functional morphology and evolution of Recent Limopsidae. <em>Malacologia.</em> 21/1-2): 61-93., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13111004 [details]
redescription Coan, E. V.; Valentich-Scott, P. (2012). Bivalve seashells of tropical West America. Marine bivalve mollusks from Baja California to northern Peru. 2 vols, 1258 pp. [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Whereas Tevesz (1977) accepted two genera, Limopsis and Empleconia Dall 1908, Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia 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, whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
| Language | Name | |
|---|---|---|
| Japanese | シラスナガイ科 | [details] |
