EASIN Editorial Board - European Commission

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

Thread Discussion: Atherinomorus forskalii vs lacunosus

[thread closed]