Log In
en
English
Search
Search
Search
European Alien Species Information Network - Editorial Board
Close
Select your language
български
español
čeština
dansk
Deutsch
eesti
ελληνικά
English
français
Gaeilge
hrvatski
italiano
latviešu
lietuvių
magyar
Malti
Nederlands
polski
português
română
slovenčina
slovenščina
suomi
svenska
Menu
Close
Menu
Back
Home
About
EASIN in a Nutshell
Legal Framework
Species Catalogue and Geodatabase
EASIN-Lit
EASIN Team
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
How to Cite
Services
Species Search and Mapping
Web Services
NOTSYS
European Invasive Alien Species Notification System (EASIN NOTSYS)
Member States Reporting Support
Member States Competent Authorities
Documentation
IAS Union Concern Baseline
IAS of Union Concern
IAS Regulation Implementation
MSFD Descriptor 2, Non-Indigenous Species
EASIN Publications
Codes of Conduct and Guidelines
Media Repositories on IAS
IAS of Concern for the Outermost Regions
Citizen Science
Become a Citizen Scientist
Report Species
Explore Citizen Science Reports
Information Factsheets
Citizen Science Projects
Training
"Have You Seen an Alien?" Game
Beware of Aliens
Contribute
How to Contribute
Editorial Board
Data Partners
Contact us
Menu
Close
Submenu
Back
Introduction
Discussions
The Board
Thread Discussion: Atherinomorus forskalii vs lacunosus
[thread closed]
UTC Created On: 4/30/2014 3:39 PM
Author: Stelios Katsanevakis
Responsible Member(s): Argyro ZENETOS ::
UTC Closed On: 8/28/2014 1:45 PM
Closing User: Stelios Katsanevakis
Stelios Katsanevakis 4/30/2014 - 3:39 PM
Thread Opening Text: In the catalogue I found lacunosus = forskali, with the final usage of foskali. If so, it seems that should be listed as A. forskalii (double i). However, it also seems that A. lacunosus should be used... http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=126331
Argyro ZENETOS 5/6/2014 - 1:48 PM
No, no Prof Golani insists the Med record belongs to A. forkali see CIESM ATLAS: http://www.ciesm.org/atlas/Atherinomorusforskali.php
Fabio CROCETTA 5/8/2014 - 9:24 AM
Ok, this is another problem also to be fixed first in WORMS. They have: Atherinomorus lacunosus = forskali http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=126331 But there, they say one time that the correct epithet is forskali (one I) and another time that the correct epithet is forskalii (with two I). So also this should be checked. But then, they also have as valid Atherinomorus forskalii http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=761426 So, a fish expert should fix that in WORMS, then we can proceed??
Argyro ZENETOS 5/12/2014 - 12:10 PM
I agree can JRC inform the WoRMS fish experts on it?
Fabio CROCETTA 6/30/2014 - 9:06 AM
Nicolas Bailly replied: A. lacunosus and A. forskalii are different species, so in the catalogue we should delete lacunosus = forskalii or may be we should include lacunosus sensu Mediterranean auctores = forskalii (with two i)
Stelios Katsanevakis 8/28/2014 - 1:45 PM
Atherinomorus forskali (R01649) and Atherinomorus lacunosus (R01649) were both linked to the newly created taxon Atherinomorus forskalii (R18214) (with two I).
Stelios Katsanevakis 8/28/2014 - 1:45 PM
Thread Closing Text: No closing text.
Back To Threads