• Nomenclatural status

User comments

• Doweld Alexander at: 05/28/2021 18:01

  Originally incorrectly proposed as "Cyclotella lacuna (Eulenst.) Aleschinskaja et Pirumova, comb. nov." with a reference to "C[yclotella]. castracanei Eulenst. Atlas der Diatomaceenkund[e], 1874, Tafel 225, N 3-5"; the epithet 'lacuna' is missing in 1874 and 1901 publications. Authors explicitly cited 'holotype' and based their new taxa on fossil material in spite of extant ones; in addition, authors cited only part of the original protologue of previously validly published C. castracanei Eulenst. ex Fricke (in A.F.W. Schmidt, Atlas Diatom. Series V, Heft 57: tab 225, fig. 3-5. Sept 1901, although the remaining tab. 225: figs. 1-2, 6-7 were not included in the new fossil taxon), which does not allow to consider them as nomenclatural synonyms. The new fossil-species is accepted as a new one, not based on the previously published name (not having 'basionym').