| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vitali |
Posted - 08/11/2024 : 19:13:51
It seems that a well-known site https://www.biolib.cz considers both
Sybra oshimana Breuning, 1958 and Sybra baculina oshimana Breuning, 1958
to be valid taxons. Considering that both have the same description author/year, looks suspisious. Any comment on this subject? |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Francesco |
Posted - 10/11/2024 : 08:27:52
Thank you for the signalisation. I have corrected it. |
| Xaurus |
Posted - 09/11/2024 : 01:53:47
maybe such ? combination comes from material determined as baculina oshimana, like material I got from ZSM. |
| Vitali |
Posted - 08/11/2024 : 20:38:21
Thank you, Xavier! Seems to be a mistake in BioLib. |
| Xavier |
Posted - 08/11/2024 : 19:39:29
No: First is Sybra oshimana Breuning, 1958, and then Sybra pascoei subsp. oshimana Hayashi, 1968 and Sybra (Sybra) baculina subsp. oshimana Hayashi, 1972 which are considered as synomyms of the first species in Titan database.
I can't find any Sybra baculina oshimana in Breuning's 1958 publications. |
