Back
Veryhachium trispinosum ssp. trisulcum
Veryhachium trispinosum ssp. trisulcum (Deunff, 1951 ex Deunff, 1959) Tynni, 1982
Combination not validly published since Tynni, 1982 did not fully reference the basionym.
Now Veryhachium trisulcum (an acritarch species). Originally (and now) Veryhachium trisulcum (an acritarch species), subsequently Veryhachium trispinosum ssp. trisculum (combination not validly published); see also Hystrichosphaeridium trisulcum (nomen nudum).
Holotype: Deunff, 1959, pl.1, fig.4. Deunff, 1959 cited as the holotype a specimen which he designated as "A-87" and indicated that he was not illustrating that specimen. However, on the same page, he also cited specimen "A-87" as a paratype and illustrated it in his pl.1, fig.4. Subsequent authors, including
Eisenack et al., 1979 have stated that the holotype was illustrated in Deunff, 1951. Since the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1951 is not demonstrably the same
as "A-87", the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1959 is assumed to be the holotype.
Age: Middle Ordovician
Combination not validly published since Tynni, 1982 did not fully reference the basionym.
Now Veryhachium trisulcum (an acritarch species). Originally (and now) Veryhachium trisulcum (an acritarch species), subsequently Veryhachium trispinosum ssp. trisculum (combination not validly published); see also Hystrichosphaeridium trisulcum (nomen nudum).
Holotype: Deunff, 1959, pl.1, fig.4. Deunff, 1959 cited as the holotype a specimen which he designated as "A-87" and indicated that he was not illustrating that specimen. However, on the same page, he also cited specimen "A-87" as a paratype and illustrated it in his pl.1, fig.4. Subsequent authors, including
Eisenack et al., 1979 have stated that the holotype was illustrated in Deunff, 1951. Since the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1951 is not demonstrably the same
as "A-87", the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1959 is assumed to be the holotype.
Age: Middle Ordovician