LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for ALGAE-L Archives


ALGAE-L Archives

ALGAE-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave ALGAE-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Valid names or synonyms and higher affinities
From: Inger Wallentinus <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Inger Wallentinus <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:32:12 +0200
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)


When I am reviewing papers I frequently use the www.algaebase.com and
mostly find it an excellent way to get information. However, sometimes the
valid names are different than in most other sources. Now I am going
through a manuscript to a popular photoflora on seaweeds in the Baltic Sea
and the authors are very keen on getting the correct names etc. and we are
discussing the correct names for the following species as well as higher
affinities:

SPECIES
1) Enteromorpha ahlneriana is  according to the data base not a valid name
and it should be named E. procera. Is that accepted by most and how for the
comment that it according to some authors is a synonym to E. prolifera?

2) Enteromorpha clathrata is still kept in the data base although Blomster
et al. 1999 proposed it to be the same as E. muscoides with a priority for
the latter. Is E. clathrata still accepted by most people?

3) Ulvopsis grevillei is according to the data base back as Monostroma
grevillei. Do most people agree to that?

4) Ceramium nodulosum replaced C. rubrum when Maggs & Hommersand published
the Ceramiales part of the Seaweeds of the British Isles. The data base has
it back as C. rubrum. Is that accepted by most people (it certainly would
be easier for students to remember)?

HIGHER AFFINITIES
The data base does not recognize Florideophyceae and Bangiophyceae as
classes as in most of the recent text books. Why?

Many of the previously used orders within Phaeophyceae are no longer used
in the data base. Why?

Among the green algae the data base gives the class Chlorphyceae for most
of them (except Charophyceae) Why?

Any comments by people who are more experienced than I am in taxonomy would
be most welcome. Thanks in advance

Inger Wallentinus









______________________________________________________________________________
Professor Inger Wallentinus

Department of Marine Ecology, Marine Botany, Goteborg university

P.O. Box 461
SE 405 30 GOTEBORG, Sweden

tel: Int.+ 46-(0)31 773 27 02
fax: Int.+ 46-(0)31 773 27 27
E-mail-address: "[log in to unmask]"


Visiting address:
Carl Skottsbergs gata 22 b

***************************************************************************
This message was sent to you because you are subscribed to ALGAE-L, a
listserver list run by [log in to unmask] You can remove your name
from the ALGAE-L list by sending a message to [log in to unmask]
with the words SIGNOFF ALGAE-L in the text. If you have further difficulty
please contact Mike Guiry. More information and an archive of messages since
1995 can be found at http://www.seaweed.ie/algae-l/default.html
***************************************************************************

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main ALGAE-L Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager