Tonicia” wattebledi de Rochebrune, 1882
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5704.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:747DFE8B-156A-493A-8817-5F861C4D6319 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FEF726-FEC7-4F38-0FAD-FF056B2396AD |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Tonicia” wattebledi de Rochebrune, 1882 |
| status |
|
“ Tonicia” wattebledi de Rochebrune, 1882
Fig. 153D View FIGURE 153
Tonicia waltebledi de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 55 , pl. 3, fig. 3; Van Belle 1981, p. 80;? Vergneau 1966, p. 357, pl. 7, fig. 21; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records); Dell’Angelo et al. 2011, p. 953; Dell’Angelo et al. 2019a, p. 310; Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b, p. 10, figs 4.C–D.
Tonicia wattebledi ; Benoist 1882 a, p. xxix; Benoist 1884, p. 58; Du Boucher 1884, p. 167; von Koenen 1888, p. 349.
Remarks. This species has been studied by Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b), that found a lot with two intermediate valves in the Benoist collection at MHNBx (MHNBx 2014.14.21.1 to 2014.14.21.2), labeled Tonicia wattebledi , from the Oligocene (Rupelian) of Gaas, France. This species was reported both as waltebledi or wattebledi , but the correct taxon is wattebledi ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b). The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Fig. 153D View FIGURE 153 ) do not match with the syntypes deposited at MHNBx ( Dell’Angelo et al.,2020b), the two intermediate valves in the Benoist collection have been excluded from the type series and attributed to other Lepidochitona spp . ( L. larratensis Dell’Angelo, Lesport, Cluzaud & Sosso, 2020, see Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b: tab. 2). The generic attribution of this species remains unassessed, and Tonicia wattebledi has been considered nomen dubium ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b).
Unfortunately, de Rochebrune reports an incorrect reference for the figure of Tonicia waltebledi , “pl. 3 fig. 2”, which corresponds instead to Tonicia pustulifera de Rochebrune, 1882 , as reported in the caption of the table, and Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b) include also the wrong figure in their paper (the correct figure is that of pl. 3 fig. 3 of de Rochebrune). We maintain, however, the opinion by Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b) who consider Tonicia wattebledi as a nomen dubium.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
|
Kingdom |
|
|
Phylum |
|
|
Class |
|
|
Order |
|
|
Family |
|
|
Genus |
Tonicia” wattebledi de Rochebrune, 1882
| Dell’Angelo, Bruno, Sosso, Maurizio & Taviani, Marco 2025 |
Tonicia wattebledi
| Koenen, A. von 1888: 349 |
| Benoist, E. 1884: 58 |
| Du Boucher, H. 1884: 167 |
Tonicia waltebledi de Rochebrune, 1882 , p. 55
| Dell'Angelo, B. & Lesport, J. - F. & Cluzaud, A. & Sosso, M. 2020: 10 |
| Dell'Angelo, B. & Sosso, M. & Bonfitto, A. 2019: 310 |
| Dell'Angelo, B. & Bonfitto, A. & Taviani, M. 2011: 953 |
| Van Belle, R. A. 1981: 80 |
| Vergneau, A. - M. 1966: 357 |
| Rochebrune, A. T. de 1882: 55 |