2015
DOI: 10.1635/053.164.0109
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Paul Hesse Collection at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, with a review of names for Mollusca introduced by Hesse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
6
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…2 – 4 ) alludes to a possible taxonomic inconsistency derived from Fowler ’s ( 1941 ) description of L. piau , as well as the geographic origin of the specimen analyzed in the present study, which was from the São Francisco basin. Fowler (1941) described Leporinus piau based on a type specimen from the Salgado River in the Jaguaribe basin of the Brazilian state of Ceará, but included a paratype from the Jatobá River, in the São Francisco basin, which led to the subsequent identification of most Leporinus specimens from the São Francisco River as L. piau ( Garavello & Britski, 2003 ; Carvalho et al, 2011 ). However, Silva-Santos et al (2018) , who analyzed nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers, including COI, noted that the Leporinus specimens from the São Francisco basin represent a species distinct from L. piau from the type locality in the Jaguaribe basin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2 – 4 ) alludes to a possible taxonomic inconsistency derived from Fowler ’s ( 1941 ) description of L. piau , as well as the geographic origin of the specimen analyzed in the present study, which was from the São Francisco basin. Fowler (1941) described Leporinus piau based on a type specimen from the Salgado River in the Jaguaribe basin of the Brazilian state of Ceará, but included a paratype from the Jatobá River, in the São Francisco basin, which led to the subsequent identification of most Leporinus specimens from the São Francisco River as L. piau ( Garavello & Britski, 2003 ; Carvalho et al, 2011 ). However, Silva-Santos et al (2018) , who analyzed nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers, including COI, noted that the Leporinus specimens from the São Francisco basin represent a species distinct from L. piau from the type locality in the Jaguaribe basin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…However, Silva-Santos et al (2018) , who analyzed nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers, including COI, noted that the Leporinus specimens from the São Francisco basin represent a species distinct from L. piau from the type locality in the Jaguaribe basin. Clearly, Fowler ’s ( 1941 ) inclusion of a paratype from a distinct hydrographic basin have contributed fundamentally to the taxonomic uncertainties surrounding L. piau .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En lo que se considera la primera lista de peces de Bolivia, Fowler (1940) incluye cuatro especies de rivúlidos, entonces todas incluidas en el género Rivulus. Las especies listadas coinciden con las previamente citadas por Myers (1927b), pero añade Anablepsoides beniensis (como Rivulus beniensis y su subespecie R. beniensis lacustris).…”
Section: Inventarios Y Diversidad En Boliviaunclassified
“…Las especies listadas coinciden con las previamente citadas por Myers (1927b), pero añade Anablepsoides beniensis (como Rivulus beniensis y su subespecie R. beniensis lacustris). Sin embargo, a pesar de que la descripción de A. beniensis se basó en las mismas muestras que fueron erróneamente identificadas como Laimosemion strigatum, Fowler (1940) no realiza la sustitución y mantiene a ambas especies en la lista. Este error es transcrito a varios listados posteriores (Terrazas-Urquidi 1970, Pouilly et al 2010, Carvajal-Vallejos & Zeballos 2011 y persiste hasta principios de la década de 2010.…”
Section: Inventarios Y Diversidad En Boliviaunclassified
“…Evidence of the non‐monophyletic status of Imparfinis was supplied in the molecular study of Pimelodoidea by Sullivan et al (2013), which albeit was not focused on the internal relationships of Heptapteridae and its taxonomic sampling was scanty, showed that the only two species analysed ( Imparfinis cf. cochabambae and “ Imparfinis ” stictonotus , Fowler, 1940) do not form a monophyletic group. The most recent contribution dealing with the taxonomy of Imparfinis was Bockmann and Slobodian (2018), where they proposed a reduced circumscription of the genus by placing some species formerly in Imparfinis in several informal groups at the genus level.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%