Phymatolithon tenue (Rosenvinge) Düwel & Wegeberg 1996
Publication Details
Phymatolithon tenue (Rosenvinge) Düwel & Wegeberg 1996: 482
Published in: Düwel, L. & Wegeberg, S. (1996). The typification and status of Leptophytum (Corallinaceae, Rhodophyta). Phycologia 35: 470-483.
Request PDFType Species
The type species (holotype) of the genus Phymatolithon is Phymatolithon polymorphum Foslie.
Status of Name
This name is of an entity that is currently accepted taxonomically.
Basionym
Lithothamnion tenue Rosenvinge
Type Information
Lectotype locality: Holstensborg, Greenland; (Rosenvinge 1893: 778) Lectotype: Hartz; 20.vi.1890; 12 fathoms; C; (Düwel & Wegeberg 1996: 478) Notes: Isolectotype: TRH B4-1868.
Origin of Species Name
Adjective (Latin), thin, fine, slender (Stearn 1983).
General Environment
This is a marine species.
Created: 10 May 2000 by Fabio Rindi.
Last updated: 14 February 2020
Verification of Data
Users are responsible for verifying the accuracy of information before use, as noted on the website Content page.
Taxonomic note
Phymatolithon tenue has incorrectly been associated with
the name Leptophytum leave, a
heterotypic synonym of Phymatolithon
lenormandii. Complex nomenclatural issues are involved. Düwel &
Wegeberg (1996) concluded from a study of relevant type specimens and other
material that Phymatolithon tenue was
a distinct species, that the designated epitype of Leptophytum laeve Adey (1966) was conspecific with the type of Phymatolithon lenormandii, and that Adey's (1966) concept of Leptophytum
laeve was in full accord with Phymatolithon
tenue (also see Woelkerling et al.
2002). The holotype of L. leave, a
Strömfelt specimen originally described as Lithophyllum
laeve (Strömfelt 1886), was considered by Düwel & Wegebrg (1996) to be
demonstrably ambiguous and not critically identifiable for purposes of the
precise application of a name to a taxon, necessitating designation of an
epitype. The interpretation (Athanasiadis 2007: 485) that Phymatolithon tenue is a heterotypic synonym of Leptophytum laeve stems from the
arguments (Adey et al. 2001) that the
designated epitype and the holotype of L
laeve differ taxonomically and that the designated epitype is in serious
conflict with the protologue. Based on these arguments, Athanasiadis & Adey
(2003) proposed the formal conservation of the name Lithophyllum laeve Strömfelt with a conserved type. The
nomenclatural Committee for Algae (Compère 2004), however, concluded that the
arguments mentioned above were not substantiated, and the proposal was
unanimously rejected. The Committee for Algae (Prud'homme van Reine 2011) also
noted that subsequent arguments (Athanasiadis & Adey 2006: 72; Athanasiadis
2007: 485) that the epitypification of Düwel & Wegeberg was "non-effective"
involve incorrect, unacceptable interpretations of the International Code of
Nomenclature. - (11 May 2006)
Linking to this page: https://www.algaebase.org/search/species/detail/?species_id=22158
Citing AlgaeBase
Cite this record as:
M.D. Guiry in Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. 14 February 2020. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. https://www.algaebase.org; searched on 17 April 2025
