Systematic Parasitology

, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp 249–249 | Cite as

The nomenclature of the Recent Pentastomida (Crustacea), with a list of species and available names: Corrigendum

  • Gary C. B. PooreEmail author


19th Century Animal Ecology Early Literature High Taxon General Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Shipley’s (1905) use and justification of the crustacean subclass name Pentastomida now in common use was not the first usage of this name, as I stated in my recent paper (Poore, 2012). The name Pentastomida can be traced back at least to Huxley (1869) by searching the Biodiversity Heritage Library ( Huxley listed the name as a member of Arachnida in his book ‘An introduction to the classification of animals’ without giving its derivation or referring to earlier literature. In a later work, he (Huxley, 1878) included two generic names, Linguatula Frölich, 1789 and Pentastoma Rudolphi, 1812, as synonyms. Huxley’s name was used later in the 19th Century in general texts (for example, Kingsley, 1884; Sedgwick & Heathcote, 1884) and in a comparative embryology textbook (Balfour, 1880). The order Linguatulida Claus, 1872 is a synonym no longer in use. Curiously, no-one describing species of this taxon during the 18th or 19th Centuries (see references to Frölich, Humboldt, Diesing, Wyman, Haldeman, Baird, Leuckart, Wedl and Lohrmann in my 2012 paper) used either higher taxon name. Diesing (1836), who has been commonly but wrongly credited with authorship of the name Pentastomida, discussed only the genus Pentastoma, placing it alone in a new order, Acanthotheca.



I thank Rod D. M. Page for alerting me to early uses of this name.


  1. Balfour, F. M. (1880). A treatise on comparative embryology. London: Macmillan, Vol. 1, 492 + xxii pp.Google Scholar
  2. Claus, C. (1872). Grundzüge der Zoologie. Zum gebrauche an universitäten und höheren lehranstalten sowie zum selbststudium. (2nd Ed.) Marburg & Leipzig: N.G. Elwert, 1170 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Diesing, K. M. (1836). Versuch einer Monographie der Gattung Pentastoma. Annalen des Wiener Museums der Naturgeschichte, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
  4. Frölich, J. A. (1789). Beschreibungen einiger neuen Eingeweidewürmer. Der Naturforscher, 24, 101–162.Google Scholar
  5. Huxley, T. H. (1869). An introduction to the classification of animals. London: Churchill & Sons, 147 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Huxley, T. H. (1878). A manual of the anatomy of invertebrated animals. London: Churchill & Sons, 596 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Kingsley, J. S. (Ed.). (1884). The standard natural history Vol. 2. Crustacea and insects. Boston: Cassino & Co., 555 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Poore, G. C. B. (2012). The nomenclature of the Recent Pentastomida (Crustacea), with a list of species and available names. Systematic Parasitology, 82, 211–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rudolphi, C. A. (1812). Erster Nachtrag zu meiner Naturgeschichte der Eingeweidewürmer. Magazin der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 6, 83–113.Google Scholar
  10. Sedgwick, A., & Heathcote, F. G. (Eds.). (1884). Elementary text-book of zoology.Vol. 1. General part and special part: Protozoa to Insecta. (Translated and edited from C. Claus). New York: Macmillan, 615 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Shipley, A. E. (1905). Notes on ento-parasites from the Zoological Gardens, London, and elsewhere. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1, 248–253.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Museum VictoriaMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations