Abstract
The marine cyclopoid Oithona similis sensu lato Claus, 1866, is considered to be one of the most abundant and ubiquitous copepods in the world. However, its minimal original diagnosis and the unclear connection with its (subjective) senior synonym Oithona helgolandica Claus, 1863, may have caused frequent misidentification of the species. Consequently, it seems possible that several closely related but distinct forms are being named Oithona similis or Oithona helgolandica without explicit and accurate discrimination. Here the current situation concerning the correct assignment of the two species is revised, the morphological characters commonly used to identify and distinguish each species are summarized, and the nomenclatural implications of indiscriminately using these names in current taxonomic and ecological practice is considered. It is not intended to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning but certainly the opposite. “In pursuit of the maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom” (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature), we consider that reassessment of the diagnostic characters of Oithona similis sensu stricto cannot be postponed much longer. While a consensus on taxonomy and nomenclatural matters can be attained, we strongly recommend specifically reporting the authority upon which the identification of either Oithona similis s.l. or Oithona helgolandica s.l. has been accomplished.
Highlights
A global-scale baseline assessment of marine zooplankton biodiversity is critically needed to provide a contemporary benchmark against which future environmental changes can be evaluated (Bucklin et al 2011)
A rather confusing subjective synonymy of the two names has developed in recent practice, and the junior name similis has been imposed over helgolandica by prevailing usage, which is in clear contravention of the Principle of Priority (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, hereafter ICZN 1999, Article 23)
Rather than trying to prove a point, we review here the historical debate going back to the assignment of the two specific names, summarize the arguments that give support to the hypothesis that O. similis and O. helgolandica are not truly objective synonyms and discuss the implications of using both names in present times without exacting discrimination
Summary
On the uncertainty beneath the name Oithona similis Claus, 1866 (Copepoda, Cyclopoida). Defaye | Received 12 June 2015 | Accepted 16 September 2015 | Published 13 January 2016 http://zoobank.org/3BB463B7-248A-4D86-8405-4FA008F9CA8B
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have