|Resolution of persistent taxonomic and nomenclatural problems involving ciliate Protozoa assignable to the astome family Haptophryidae Cépède, 1923|
Corliss, J.O.; De Puytorac, P.; Lom, J. (1965). Resolution of persistent taxonomic and nomenclatural problems involving ciliate Protozoa assignable to the astome family Haptophryidae Cépède, 1923. J. Protoz. 12(2): 265-273
In: The Journal of Protozoology. Society of Protozoologists: Lawrence, Kan. etc.. ISSN 0022-3921, more
|Authors|| || Top |
- Corliss, J.O.
- De Puytorac, P.
- Lom, J.
Confusion has long existed in the literature concerning both the taxonomy and the nomenclature of ciliates belongin: to the astomatid family Haptophryidae. Most of the controversy has centered around the names and concepts of "Haptophrya" and "Sieboldiellina". The latter name, widely used for certain species found as parasites (endocommensals) of turbellarians, must fall as a junior synonym of the former, which has commonly been restricted to the astomatous ciliate parasites (endocommensals) of various amphibians But the species of "Haptophrya" are then left without a generic vehicle, since Haptophrya Stein, 1867, must, in effect, be used to replace Sieboldiellina Collin, 1911, as the proper generic name of the turhellarian parasites. Fortunately a name is available for the amphibian species: Cepedietta Kay, 1942.The problem is further complicated because of the recognition of subfamilial groups, the name of one of these having been formed from Sieboldiellina and having become associated with certain species parasitic in turbellarians. With the realization that, by the international rules of zoological nomenclature, Haptophrya must be used with reference to these particular turbellarian parasites, the subfamilial name associated with the amphibian forms must be changed. We propose Cepediettinae n. nom. in solution of this particular problem. We recognize a third subfamily, Cépède's Lachmannellinae, to contain the three remaining acceptable genera comprising the family Haptophryidae: Anndophrya, Lachmanndla, and Steinella.At the generic and specific levels numerous errors of a nomenclatural nature have been committed in the older literature, many unwittingly perpetuated in recent papers. These are all corrected in the present work. For the sake of future clarity we have included a series of figures, both original and from the literature, and have designated neotypes of the two principal species involved in the overall controversy.