Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T00:12:29.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Typification of the Diatom Species Coscinodiscus Concinnus Wm. Smith and Coscinodiscus Granii Gough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G. T. Boalch
G. T. Boalch
Affiliation:
The Plymouth Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The original descriptions of these two species are discussed and the material mentioned in Smith's description is examined. Discrepancies between Smith's description of Coscinodiscus concinnus and the present interpretation of this species are pointed out. Ways of typifying the two species so as to preserve current usage and still fulfil the requirement of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are given. Lectotypes for the two species are designated. Diagnostic characters distinguishing the two species in the living state as well as the cleaned valves are given.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , August 1971 , pp. 685 - 695
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Biley, L. W. 1862. Notes on new species of microscopic organisms, chiefly from the Para River, South America. Boston J. not. Hist., Vol. 7, pp. 329–52.Google Scholar
Castracane, F. 1886. Report on the Diatomaceae. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–6. Challenger Reports, Botany, Vol. 2, 178 pp.Google Scholar
De-Toni, J. B. 1894. Sylloge Algarim omnium huscusque cognitarum. 2 Bacillarieae Sect. 3, pp. 819–1556. Patavii.Google Scholar
Flogel, J. H. L. 1873. Die Expedition zur physikalish-chemischen und biologisches untersuchung der Ostsee im Sommer 1871. IIIC Diatomaceae der Grundproben. Jber. Commn. wiss. Untersuch. dt Meer Kiel, Bd 1, pp. 85–95.Google Scholar
Flogel, J. H. L. 1884. Researches on the structure of the cell-walls of diatoms. J. R. microsc. Soc., Ser. 2, Vol. 4, pp. 504–22 and pp. 665–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, L. H. 1905. Report on the plankton of the English Channel in 1903. Rep. N. Sea Fish Invest. Comm., 1902–3, pp. 325–77.Google Scholar
Gran, H. H. 1902. Das Plankton des Norwegischen Nordmeeres von biologischen und hydrographischen Gesichtspunkten behandelt. Rep. Norweg. Fish. Invest., Vol. 2, Pt. 2, No. 5, 222 pp.Google Scholar
Gran, H. H. 1905. Diatomaceae. Nordisches Plankton, Bd. 19, 146 pp.Google Scholar
Greville, R. K. 1862. Descriptions of new and rare diatoms. Ser. V. Trans, microsc. Soc., N.S., Vol. 10, pp. 18–29.Google Scholar
Grunow, A. 1879. New species and varieties of Diatomaceae from the Caspian Sea. J. R. microsc. Soc., Vol. 2, pp. 677–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunow, A. 1884. Die Diatomeen von Franz Josefs-Land. Denkschr. Akad. Wien, Bd. 48, pp. 53–112.Google Scholar
Hendey, N. I. 1964. An introductory account of the smaller algae of British coastal waters. Part V. Bacillariophyceae (Diatoms). Fishery Invest., Lond., Ser. 4, 317 pp.Google Scholar
Holmes, R. W. & Reimann, B. E. F. 1966. Variation in valve morphology during the life cycle of the marine diatom Coscinodiscus concinnus. Phycologia, Vol. 5, pp. 233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustedt, F. 1927–1928. Die Kieslalgen Deutschlands, Ostereichs und der Schweiz mit Berücksichtingung der ubrigen Lander Europas sowie der angrenzenden Meeresgebiete. In Rabenhorst, L. Kyptogamen-Flora, Bd. 7, Teil 1, pp. 1–272 (1927), pp. 272–464 (1928). Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Lanjouw, J. et al., 1966. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature as adopted by the Inter-national Botanical Congress, Edinburgh, August 1964. 402 pp. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V. 1930. The planktonic diatoms of northern seas. Ray Soc. Publs, No. 116, 224 pp. London.Google Scholar
Miquel, P. 1894. Du noyau chez les diatomées. Le Diatomiste, T. 2, pp. 105–18.Google Scholar
O'Meara, E. 1875. New species of Coscinodiscus. C, Moseleyi, O'Meara. Q. Jl microsc. Sci., N.S., Vol. 15, pp. 330–31.Google Scholar
O'Meara, E. 1876. Reports on the Irish diatomaceae. Part 1. Proc. R. Ir. Acad., Ser. 2, Vol. 2, pp. 235–425.Google Scholar
O'Meara, E. 1877a. On the diatomaceous gatherings made at Kerguelen's Land by H. N. Moseley, M.A., H.M.S. Challenger. J. Linn. Soc. (Bot.), Vol. 15, pp. 55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Meara, E. 1877b. A new Coscinodiscus (collected by Mr Moseley, H.M.S. Challenger) from the Sea of Arefusa. Q. Jl. microsc. Sci., N.S., Vol. 17, p. 461.Google Scholar
O'Meara, E. 1877c. A new species of Coscinodiscus. Q. Jl. microsc. Sci., N.S., Vol. 17, p. 463.Google Scholar
Ralfs, J. 1861. Diatoms in Pritchard, A., A History of the Infusoria, including Desmidiaceae and Diatomaceae, British and Foreign, 4th edn., pp. 756–947. London: Whittaker.Google Scholar
Rattray, J. 1890. A revision of the genus Coscinodiscus and some allied genera. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb., Vol. 16, pp. 449–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper, F. C. S. 1858. Notes on some new species and varieties of British marine Diatomaceae. Q. Jl. microsc. Sci., Vol. 6, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. 1874-. Atlas der Diatomacean-Kunde. Leipzig. Plate 114 published April 1888.Google Scholar
Smith, W. 1856. A Synopsis of the British Diatomaceae, Vol. 2, xxix+107 pp. London.Google Scholar
Stafleu, F. A. 1970. Nomenclature at Seattle. Taxon, Vol. 19. pp. 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, F. A. & Voss, G. 1969. Synopsis of proposals on botanical nomenclature Seattle 1969. Regnum Vegetabile, Vol. 50, 124 pp.Google Scholar
Van Heurck, H. 1880–1885. Synopsis des diatomées de Belgique. Atlas 1880–3, Text 1885. Anvers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heurck, H. 1896. A Treatise on the Diatomaceae. Trans. W. E. Baxter, 558 pp. London: Wm. Wesley and Son.Google Scholar