Amphiprora - Entomoneis #glossary


Charles Suslavage
 

Hi All,

I have posted three images of Amphiprora. I should re-label these as Entomoneis?

All three images are of the same diatom. These are attempts on my part at stacking images to increase depth of field, not bad but not good either. Like the images posted by Keith this guy was collected from a salt marsh here in Southern California.

Charles


Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
 

Charles,

I've been using Entomoneis because Round (1990) uses it instead of Amphiprora. On p 632 they say, "...the more familiar name Amphiprora was abandoned in favor of Entomoneis by Reimer (in Patrick & Reimer, 1975)...". AlgaeBase puts the two genera in different families. Oh, boy.

I like your image showing the keel becoming lower in the valve center. The three images help sort out the geometry though I still am struggling to understand it.

It's great to know it's on the west coast too. I'll have to try for it in Oregon sometime.

~Rob


On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:14 AM, charles <suslavage@...> wrote:
 

Hi All,

I have posted three images of Amphiprora. I should re-label these as Entomoneis?

All three images are of the same diatom. These are attempts on my part at stacking images to increase depth of field, not bad but not good either. Like the images posted by Keith this guy was collected from a salt marsh here in Southern California.

Charles



scitech200
 

Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith


"charles" wrote:
I have posted three images of Amphiprora.
I should re-label these as Entomoneis?
<SNIP>
All three images are of the same diatom.
<SNIP>


Richard Carter
 

Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick


From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith


Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
 

Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 

Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick


From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith


Richard Carter
 

Rob,

I should have pointed out in my posting that I'm only able to disentangle such "taxonomic balls of twine" through much ferreting around in the superb online catalog of the California Academy of Sciences.  Anyone with a serious interest in diatom taxonomy really needs to get familiar with this supremely important tool.  I have been rooting around in it like a pig after truffles almost every day for a couple of months, working out taxonomic problems in the NAWQA data for the Diatoms of the Arid Southwest website.  (Thanks for the kudos, David!)  And every time I use it, I learn new stuff!

Dick


From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick


From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith




urginia
 

dick,

thanks for that tour de force

ever considered a career in law ?

brian

--- In diatom_forum@..., Richard Carter <rcarter68502@...> wrote:

Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiproraand Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprorain 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constrictaand Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constrictawas earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constrictais probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularisis a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularisin the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constrictaa
recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula.... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Naviculaby N. constrictaGrunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans(Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprorais not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alataEhrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneisin 1845, and included only Navicula alataEhrenberg as Entomoneis alata(Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneisis fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick



________________________________
From: Keith Shaw <scitech200@...>
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis


 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith


Chuck Stapleton <stapleton.chuck@...>
 

Hello Dick,
     I have attached the page I believe you are asking for from P & R, vol II, page 2. Hope this will help.
Chuck  castap@...

From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis



Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick

From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith






Richard Carter
 

Chuck,

This is exactly what I was referring to, thank you very much for posting it!  And I'm gratified that I was pretty much able to recap Reimer's argument without having seen it, ha ha!  Reimer correctly cites p. 401 of Ehrenberg as the first mention of Amphiprora, but the two included species are described on p. 410, according to the CAS Catalog of Diatom Names.

Dick


From: Chuck Stapleton
To: "diatom_forum@..."
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Dick,
     I have attached the page I believe you are asking for from P & R, vol II, page 2. Hope this will help.
Chuck  castap@...

From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis



Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick

From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith








Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
 


Dick,
 
Thanks for the reminder about the CAS Catalogue of Diatom Names, On-Line Version. When the discussion about Entomoneis started, I actually did look up both genera in the catalog. When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused and retreated to Round (1990) for an explanation. I know, as you have said, that the Catalog is concerned with naming and not taxonomy. I've been grateful over the years of vascular plant work that the floras published the authorities, but now on the bleeding edge of diatom taxonomy, I think I will try to be at least conversant with basionymns, lectotypes, etc.
 
(Do you know of a glossary that summarizes these terms?)
 
Maybe if I put your explanation of the naming and the Catalog side by side, I will see how you figured it out. The Catalog comments are reading like a legal document at the moment.
 
Rob
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 

Rob,

I should have pointed out in my posting that I'm only able to disentangle such "taxonomic balls of twine" through much ferreting around in the superb online catalog of the California Academy of Sciences.  Anyone with a serious interest in diatom taxonomy really needs to get familiar with this supremely important tool.  I have been rooting around in it like a pig after truffles almost every day for a couple of months, working out taxonomic problems in the NAWQA data for the Diatoms of the Arid Southwest website.  (Thanks for the kudos, David!)  And every time I use it, I learn new stuff!

Dick


From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick


From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith




urginia
 

Rob,

a short glossary is on the diatom WIKI site at:

http://frustule.jx3.net/index.php/Category:Taxonomic_Terminology

when you´ve mastered that...and if you are feeling brave you can always go to the icbn code:

http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

good luck !
Brian

--- In diatom_forum@..., "Rob Kimmich" <kimmich46@...> wrote:

Dick,

Thanks for the reminder about the CAS Catalogue of Diatom Names, On-Line Version. When the discussion about Entomoneis started, I actually did look up both genera in the catalog. When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused and retreated to Round (1990) for an explanation. I know, as you have said, that the Catalog is concerned with naming and not taxonomy. I've been grateful over the years of vascular plant work that the floras published the authorities, but now on the bleeding edge of diatom taxonomy, I think I will try to be at least conversant with basionymns, lectotypes, etc.

(Do you know of a glossary that summarizes these terms?)

Maybe if I put your explanation of the naming and the Catalog side by side, I will see how you figured it out. The Catalog comments are reading like a legal document at the moment.

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Carter
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis




Rob,


I should have pointed out in my posting that I'm only able to disentangle such "taxonomic balls of twine" through much ferreting around in the superb online catalog of the California Academy of Sciences. Anyone with a serious interest in diatom taxonomy really needs to get familiar with this supremely important tool. I have been rooting around in it like a pig after truffles almost every day for a couple of months, working out taxonomic problems in the NAWQA data for the Diatoms of the Arid Southwest website. (Thanks for the kudos, David!) And every time I use it, I learn new stuff!


Dick



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis



Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Carter
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis



Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so. I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States. I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it. (David, do you have this publication in your library? I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us? Or if anyone else has it..............?) What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.


Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time). According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included. The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst. This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules. In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen. (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.) Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?" Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle". Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley. Whew! Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus. Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus. This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.


Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy. Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate. It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species. No controversy. I rest my case. (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)


Hope this helps,


Dick




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Shaw <scitech200@...>
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis



Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith


Richard Carter
 

Rob,

I looked at this glossary, and it seems to be very useful.  Of course, I saw the word "kleptotype" at the top center, and had to have a look -- and got a good laugh!

I'm glad you posted the ICBN link, both for the "legalities and rules", but also for the glossary that appears as an appendix.  There are also lists of conserved and rejected diatom names that are quite useful.

Dick


From: urginia
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:10 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Rob,

a short glossary is on the diatom WIKI site at:

http://frustule.jx3.net/index.php/Category:Taxonomic_Terminology

when you´ve mastered that...and if you are feeling brave you can always go to the icbn code:

http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

good luck !
Brian

--- In diatom_forum@..., "Rob Kimmich" wrote:
>
> Dick,
>
> Thanks for the reminder about the CAS Catalogue of Diatom Names, On-Line Version. When the discussion about Entomoneis started, I actually did look up both genera in the catalog. When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused and retreated to Round (1990) for an explanation. I know, as you have said, that the Catalog is concerned with naming and not taxonomy. I've been grateful over the years of vascular plant work that the floras published the authorities, but now on the bleeding edge of diatom taxonomy, I think I will try to be at least conversant with basionymns, lectotypes, etc.
>
> (Do you know of a glossary that summarizes these terms?)
>
> Maybe if I put your explanation of the naming and the Catalog side by side, I will see how you figured it out. The Catalog comments are reading like a legal document at the moment.
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Carter
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
>
> Rob,
>
>
> I should have pointed out in my posting that I'm only able to disentangle such "taxonomic balls of twine" through much ferreting around in the superb online catalog of the California Academy of Sciences. Anyone with a serious interest in diatom taxonomy really needs to get familiar with this supremely important tool. I have been rooting around in it like a pig after truffles almost every day for a couple of months, working out taxonomic problems in the NAWQA data for the Diatoms of the Arid Southwest website. (Thanks for the kudos, David!) And every time I use it, I learn new stuff!
>
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
> Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Carter
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
> Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so. I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States. I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it. (David, do you have this publication in your library? I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us? Or if anyone else has it..............?) What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.
>
>
> Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time). According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included. The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst. This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules. In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen. (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.) Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?" Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle". Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley. Whew! Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus. Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus. This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.
>
>
> Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy. Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate. It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species. No controversy. I rest my case. (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
> Dick
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Keith Shaw
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
> Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
> Hello Charles,
>
> I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
> You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.
>
> I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.
>
> Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...
>
> Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.
>
> On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
> I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...
>
> Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.
>
> Best regards,
> Keith
>




Richard Carter
 

Rob,

>>When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused<<  When that word "valid" appears in the Catalog, it tells you only that the name is validly published, according to the rules of the ICBN.  It does not confer legitimacy; in fact, one will occasionally find a name in the Catalog that is listed as both "valid" and "illegitimate", the usual reason for the latter being that the name is superfluous.

In looking over my initial statement, I made the mistake of saying that "Amphiprora is not a valid genus."  This used the word "valid" in a totally different way, and I'm sorry for the confusion!  What I intended to say was that the name Amphiprora cannot legitimately be used to refer to the group of taxa that have customarily borne it -- if anything, it appears to be a superfluous name for Stauroneis.

Dick


From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 

Dick,
 
Thanks for the reminder about the CAS Catalogue of Diatom Names, On-Line Version. When the discussion about Entomoneis started, I actually did look up both genera in the catalog. When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused and retreated to Round (1990) for an explanation. I know, as you have said, that the Catalog is concerned with naming and not taxonomy. I've been grateful over the years of vascular plant work that the floras published the authorities, but now on the bleeding edge of diatom taxonomy, I think I will try to be at least conversant with basionymns, lectotypes, etc.
 
(Do you know of a glossary that summarizes these terms?)
 
Maybe if I put your explanation of the naming and the Catalog side by side, I will see how you figured it out. The Catalog comments are reading like a legal document at the moment.
 
Rob


Richard Carter
 

Rob,

Another taxonomic term to be included in a glossary is "iconotype" -- which I don't see in the current glossaries.  An iconotype is an illustration that serves as a type, there being no actual specimens surviving to "anchor" a taxon.  Many of the genera and species described by Ehrenberg are based on iconotypes -- although some of his actual specimens do survive.  (Some years ago Reichardt wrote a fine paper redescribing Ehrenberg's type material from Cayenne.)  Of course, the value of an iconotype depends upon the author's artistic ability; Ehrenberg's drawings are good, Greville's are notoriously bad!  I thought this term was worth mentioning, since it appears frequently on plates in the current Diatoms of Europe series when an author reproduces an old iconotype.

Dick


From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 

Dick,
 
Thanks for the reminder about the CAS Catalogue of Diatom Names, On-Line Version. When the discussion about Entomoneis started, I actually did look up both genera in the catalog. When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused and retreated to Round (1990) for an explanation. I know, as you have said, that the Catalog is concerned with naming and not taxonomy. I've been grateful over the years of vascular plant work that the floras published the authorities, but now on the bleeding edge of diatom taxonomy, I think I will try to be at least conversant with basionymns, lectotypes, etc.
 
(Do you know of a glossary that summarizes these terms?)
 
Maybe if I put your explanation of the naming and the Catalog side by side, I will see how you figured it out. The Catalog comments are reading like a legal document at the moment.
 
Rob
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Rob,

I should have pointed out in my posting that I'm only able to disentangle such "taxonomic balls of twine" through much ferreting around in the superb online catalog of the California Academy of Sciences.  Anyone with a serious interest in diatom taxonomy really needs to get familiar with this supremely important tool.  I have been rooting around in it like a pig after truffles almost every day for a couple of months, working out taxonomic problems in the NAWQA data for the Diatoms of the Arid Southwest website.  (Thanks for the kudos, David!)  And every time I use it, I learn new stuff!

Dick


From: Rob Kimmich
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so.  I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States.  I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it.  (David, do you have this publication in your library?  I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us?  Or if anyone else has it..............?)  What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.

Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time).  According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included.  The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst.  This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules.  In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen.  (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.)  Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?"  Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle".  Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley.  Whew!  Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus.  Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus.  This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.

Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy.  Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate.  It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species.  No controversy.  I rest my case.  (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)

Hope this helps,

Dick


From: Keith Shaw
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Hello Charles,

I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.

I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.

Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...

Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.

On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...

Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.

Best regards,
Keith






Richard Carter
 

Oh, drat!  I'm getting more senile by the day, having just realized that I thanked Rob for a posting made by Brian!  My apologies, Brian!

Dick


From: urginia
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:10 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Rob,

a short glossary is on the diatom WIKI site at:

http://frustule.jx3.net/index.php/Category:Taxonomic_Terminology

when you´ve mastered that...and if you are feeling brave you can always go to the icbn code:

http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

good luck !
Brian


Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
 

Thanks, Brian.
 
I've added your two links to the diatom_forum Links page.
 
Rob
 

----- Original Message -----
From: urginia
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:10 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 

Rob,

a short glossary is on the diatom WIKI site at:

http://frustule.jx3.net/index.php/Category:Taxonomic_Terminology

when you´ve mastered that...and if you are feeling brave you can always go to the icbn code:

http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

good luck !
Brian

--- In diatom_forum@..., "Rob Kimmich" >
> Dick,
>
> Thanks for the reminder about the CAS Catalogue of Diatom Names, On-Line Version. When the discussion about Entomoneis started, I actually did look up both genera in the catalog. When I found them both having a valid status, I became confused and retreated to Round (1990) for an explanation. I know, as you have said, that the Catalog is concerned with naming and not taxonomy. I've been grateful over the years of vascular plant work that the floras published the authorities, but now on the bleeding edge of diatom taxonomy, I think I will try to be at least conversant with basionymns, lectotypes, etc.
>
> (Do you know of a glossary that summarizes these terms?)
>
> Maybe if I put your explanation of the naming and the Catalog side by side, I will see how you figured it out. The Catalog comments are reading like a legal document at the moment.
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Carter
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
>
> Rob,
>
>
> I should have pointed out in my posting that I'm only able to disentangle such "taxonomic balls of twine" through much ferreting around in the superb online catalog of the California Academy of Sciences. Anyone with a serious interest in diatom taxonomy really needs to get familiar with this supremely important tool. I have been rooting around in it like a pig after truffles almost every day for a couple of months, working out taxonomic problems in the NAWQA data for the Diatoms of the Arid Southwest website. (Thanks for the kudos, David!) And every time I use it, I learn new stuff!
>
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Rob Kimmich
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
> Wow, Dick. Thanks for untangling another taxonomic ball of twine.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Carter
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
> Since Keith has invited me to comment on the situation regarding the usage of Amphiprora and Entomoneis, I will do so. I am at a considerable disadvantage, however, as I do not have access to Reimer's discussion in Vol. 2, Part 1, of Patrick & Reimer Diatoms of the United States. I know that Reimer argued for using Entomoneis, and suppressing Amphiprora, but I have not read this argument, and so cannot summarize it. (David, do you have this publication in your library? I seem to recall seeing it on your shelves; if so, perhaps you could look it up for us? Or if anyone else has it..............?) What I will do is construct my own argument for using Entomoneis, and not Amphiprora.
>
>
> Ehrenberg first validly used the name Amphiprora in 1843, and included two species: Amphiprora constricta and Amphiprora navicularis, but designated no generotype (as was usual at that time). According to the rules of the ICBN, subsequent designation of a lectotype for the genus must be one of the two species originally included. The first valid lectotypification was that of Ross in Farr et al., 1979, who suggested that A. constricta was earlier designated the lectotype by Rabenhorst. This was not so, thus making the selection by Ross the first one that is valid under the rules. In his Synopsis of the Naviculoid Diatoms, Cleve suggested that A. constricta is probably unrecognizable, and that A. navicularis is a synonym of Navicula semen. (This latter claim was incorrect; Cox placed A. navicularis in the genus Placoneis, and in 2010 Kociolek and Thomas made it the generotype of their new genus Rexlowea.) Thus the question becomes "Is A. constricta a recognizable species?" Cleve suggested that it was "some species of Navicula .... slightly constricted in the middle". Contemporary opinion seems to be that it is a recognizable species, that the name is preoccupied in Navicula by N. constricta Grunow, that the first available name is Navicula simulans Donkin, and that the proper placement is now Stauroneis simulans (Donkin) Ross in Hartley. Whew! Summary: Amphiprora is not a valid genus. Cleve treated it as such by following Kützing in making Navicula alata Ehrenberg the generotype, it being the first "recognizable" species included in the genus. This is a clear violation of the ICBN code, and is thoroughly illegitimate.
>
>
> Ehrenberg first validly used Entomoneis in 1845, and included only Navicula alata Ehrenberg as Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg, which thus became the generotype by monotypy. Thus Entomoneis is fully legitimate. It has a clearly recognizable and validly described type species. No controversy. I rest my case. (I assume that Reimer's argument was similar!)
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
> Dick
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Keith Shaw
> To: diatom_forum@...
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 6:08 AM
> Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis
>
>
>
> Hello Charles,
>
> I really enjoyed seeing your images - thank you for taking the time to go collect and photograph.
> You have illustrated the rolling action very nicely. It seems that this rolling accompanied by a significant twisting of the frustule structure is exhibited by only a relatively small number of diatom species.
>
> I have a note that David G. Mann (UK) has described the Amphiprora alata stucture in some detail, so we'll have to track down this information and compare with that available in the Round et al book.
>
> Then we have Klaus' slide on it's way from across the pond...
>
> Also, I seem to remember that French members of this group have published photos of this diatom.
>
> On delving some more into the Amphiprora versus Entomoneis classification I fear that it's yet another case of taxonomic "confusion"...
> I thought that it was Riemer that described as to why it should be Entomoneis - thus Entomoneis alata (Ehrenberg) Reimer in Patrick & Reimer 1975. But then there is reference to Ehrenberg using both Amphiprora and Entomoneis (1843, 1845) and then Cleve gets involved (1894), etc., etc.. So go figure...
>
> Maybe Dick can comment on who we should consider to be the definitive source for the "currently accepted" classification.
>
> Best regards,
> Keith
>


Rob Kimmich <kimmich46@...>
 

No worries, Dick. We do look somewhat alike in cyberspace.  ~Rob
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 

Oh, drat!  I'm getting more senile by the day, having just realized that I thanked Rob for a posting made by Brian!  My apologies, Brian!

Dick


From: urginia <urginia@...>
To: diatom_forum@...
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:10 AM
Subject: [diatom_forum] Re: Amphiprora - Entomoneis

 
Rob,

a short glossary is on the diatom WIKI site at:

http://frustule.jx3.net/index.php/Category:Taxonomic_Terminology

when you´ve mastered that...and if you are feeling brave you can always go to the icbn code:

http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

good luck !
Brian