CaRMS taxon details
Aspalima Iredale, 1929
761899 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:761899)
accepted
Genus
Limopsis (Aspalima) Iredale, 1929 · unaccepted > superseded rank
marine
recent + fossil
Iredale, T. (1929). Mollusca from the continental shelf of eastern Australia. No 2. <em>Records of the Australian Museum.</em> 17(4): 157-189 [4 September 1929]., available online at http://australianmuseum.net.au/journal/Iredale-1929-Rec-Aust-Mus-174-157189
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite...
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia Dall, 1908 and Nipponolimopsis Habe 1951, thus assigning generic status to former subgenera. Beu (2006) again accepted the only genus Limopsis. Huber (2010) acknowledged the morphological groups distinguished by Oliver, but treated them as subgenera and added two further new subgenera.
This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors (including Aspalima), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors (including Aspalima), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
MolluscaBase eds. (2025). MolluscaBase. Aspalima Iredale, 1929. Accessed through: Nozères, C., Kennedy, M.K. (Eds.) (2025) Canadian Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/carms/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=761899 on 2025-04-30
Nozères, C., Kennedy, M.K. (Eds.) (2025). Canadian Register of Marine Species. Aspalima Iredale, 1929. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/CaRMS/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=761899 on 2025-04-30
Date
action
by
original description
Iredale, T. (1929). Mollusca from the continental shelf of eastern Australia. No 2. <em>Records of the Australian Museum.</em> 17(4): 157-189 [4 September 1929]., available online at http://australianmuseum.net.au/journal/Iredale-1929-Rec-Aust-Mus-174-157189
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
status source Janssen, R. (2015). A review of the Oligocene Limopsidae of the North Sea Basin (Mollusca: Bivalvia). <em>Geologica Saxonica.</em> 61 (1): 7-33., available online at https://www.senckenberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/02_geologica-saxonica61-1_2015_janssen.pdf [details] Available for editors
page(s): 160, 188 [details] Available for editors
status source Janssen, R. (2015). A review of the Oligocene Limopsidae of the North Sea Basin (Mollusca: Bivalvia). <em>Geologica Saxonica.</em> 61 (1): 7-33., available online at https://www.senckenberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/02_geologica-saxonica61-1_2015_janssen.pdf [details] Available for editors
From editor or global species database
Taxonomy There is no general agreement over the definition of genera in this family. Oliver (1981) recognised only Limopsis despite arranging the various Recent species into 13 morphological groups. Coan et al. (2000) accepted Limopsis, Empleconia Dall, 1908 and Nipponolimopsis Habe 1951, thus assigning generic status to former subgenera. Beu (2006) again accepted the only genus Limopsis. Huber (2010) acknowledged the morphological groups distinguished by Oliver, but treated them as subgenera and added two further new subgenera.This was challenged by Janssen (2015) who argued that "As long as no molecular studies are available which could demonstrate natural relationships among species groups, conchologically separable groups should be treated as distinct on generic level". This is here followed for the genus-group taxa which have been formally raised to genus level by recent authors (including Aspalima), whereas others so far used only at subgeneric level are left in Limopsis until forthcoming authors address their placement. [details]
