Checklist of the Collembola: Orchesellinae |
Genus | Number of species |
---|---|
Australotomurus | 7 |
Corynothrix | 1 |
Dicranorchesella | 4 |
Neorchesella | 2 |
Orchesella | 104 |
Orchesellides | 10 |
Orchesellinae | 128 |
Remark by ICZN. 2007:579: Placed on the Official List of Names in Zoology. Opinion 291. |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2021.11.29: Given the new species name has been proposed in a Master thesis, which was distributed in electronic form, but not registered in Zoobank, it is not published in line with ICZN rules (Art.8.5). In addition the new name is an unavailable nomen nudum given a proper description is lacking. (Art.3.1.1). |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2021.11.29: Given the new species name has been proposed in a Master thesis, which was distributed in electronic form, but not registered in Zoobank, it is not published in line with ICZN rules (Art.8.5). In addition the new name is an unavailable nomen nudum given a proper description is lacking. (Art.3.1.1). |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2023.11.20: Apparently the authors confused records of Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842 of Stach (1960), Kuznetsova (1984, 1988, 1995), Sterzynska (1995), Busmachiu (2010), Fjellberg (2013), Borodin (2016, 2020), Tsinkevich (2016) and Krasouski (2020) with Isotoma bifasciata of Bourlet, 1839. |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2024.07.03: Salmon, 1964:418 attributed the authority of Orchesella bifasciata in error to Bourlet (1839) in stead of to Nicolet (1842). |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2024.07.23: "Orchesella bifasciata (Nicolet, 1841)" sensu Kuznetsova, 1988:40 is a lapsus for "Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842". |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2024.08.05: Fjellber, 2007:158-159 attributed in error the authority of his Fennoscandia and Denmark records of Orchesella bifasciata to "Bourlet, 1839". Wich suggests he assigned it to Isotoma bifasciata Bourlet, 1839. And which caused subsequent authors to assign in error these records to Isotomurus maculatus. But from the morphological description it is clear that Fjellberg refers to Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842 (not to Isotoma bifasciata Bourlet, 1839). Therefore "Orchesella bifasciata Bourlet, 1839" sensu Fjellberg, 2007:158-159 is a lapsus for "Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842". |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2024.07.23: Busmachiu, 2010:119 attributed in error the authority of his Belarus record of Orchesella bifasciata to "Bourlet, 1839". Wich suggests he assigned it to Isotoma bifasciata Bourlet, 1839. And which caused subsequent authors to assign in error this record to Isotomurus maculatus. But Busmachiu cited his record from Stach (1960). And Stach, 1960:104,108 assigned his Belarus record to Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842 (not to Bourlet, 1839). Therefore "Orchesella bifasciata Bourlet, 1839" sensu Busmachiu, 2010:119 is a lapsus for "Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842". |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2024.07.25: Borodin & Tsinkevich, 2016:14 attributed in error the authority of their Belarus record of Orchesella bifasciata to "(Bourlet, 1839)". Wich suggests they assigned it to Isotoma bifasciata Bourlet, 1839. And which caused subsequent authors to assign in error this record to Isotomurus maculatus. But Borodin & Tsinkevich, 1995 cited 2 sources : Sterzynska & Kuznetsova, 1995 and Busmachiu, 2010, which both of them referred to Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842 directly or indirectly via citations. |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2024.07.25: Sinchuk & al., 2023:14 attributed in error the authority of their cited records of Orchesella bifasciata to "(Bourlet, 1839)". Wich caused them to assign all cited records to Isotoma bifasciata Bourlet, 1839. And which caused them to assign in error these records to Isotomurus maculatus. But all cited records are of Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842 (not of Bourlet, 1839). Therefore "Orchesella bifasciata (Bourlet, 1839)" sensu Sinchuk & al., 2023:14 is a lapsus for "Orchesella bifasciata Nicolet, 1842". |
Remark by Ellis, W.N. & Bellinger, P.F. 1973:28: Nicolet, 1847 described new species from Chile. These are also described by Nicolet in Gay, 1851[lapsus for Nicolet in Gay, 1849]. But in the first paper Nicolet cites as author of the species Nicol. in Gay. Evidently the publications appeared in a reversed order. |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2021.11.29: Given the new species name has been proposed in a Master thesis, which was distributed in electronic form, but not registered in Zoobank, it is not published in line with ICZN rules (Art.8.5). In addition the new name is an unavailable nomen nudum given a proper description is lacking. (Art.3.1.1). |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2021.11.29: Given the new species name has been proposed in a Master thesis, which was distributed in electronic form, but not registered in Zoobank, it is not published in line with ICZN rules (Art.8.5). In addition the new name is an unavailable nomen nudum given a proper description is lacking. (Art.3.1.1). |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2021.11.29: Given the new species name has been proposed in a Master thesis, which was distributed in electronic form, but not registered in Zoobank, it is not published in line with ICZN rules (Art.8.5). In addition the new name is an unavailable nomen nudum given a proper description is lacking. (Art.3.1.1). |
Remark by Janssens, F. 2023.04.24: Given Ant.1+2 are not subdivided, zaninae does not belong in Orchesella but in the tribe Corynothrichini. |