Etymology
The spelling of the genus name differs in some literature. A study by Gielis, 2006 re-evaluated later some specimens and placed several species into Megalorhipida, and consistently uses that same spelling of the genus [1] . That contains is a direct statement as a subheader that "Megalorrhipida Amsel, 1935a: 293.— Incorrect (of a multiple original) spelling" to indicate that this alternative spelling is deemed incorrect (on p.201 of Gielis, 2006). That same work notably also includes examination of a taxon named as Megalorhipida pseudodefectalis Gielis, 1989 (on p.203-204 of Gielis, 2006) where a sub-header reads "Megalorrhipida pseudodefectalis Gielis, 1989a: 107", presumably to indicated that alternative spelling as unfavored, citing an older study using that spelling [2] . Yet, the author's preferred spelling of the genus is perhaps clarified in another publication of the same year which by inference from the title along seems instead to favor Megalorhipida [3] . The difference in spelling can be due to differing historical usage within the original publication of Amsel, 1935, who appears to have inconsistently using different spellings. Per ICZN, "32.2.1. If a name is spelled in more than one way in the work in which it was established, then, except as provided otherwise in this Article, the correct original spelling is that chosen by the First Reviser Art. 24.2.3.". This may be in the latter paper by Gielis, 1989 [3] , as reflected later, e.g. in Gielis, 2006 [1]
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
