Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Lindapecten muscosus

Bivalvia - Pectinida - Pectinidae

Pecten muscosus was named by Wood (1828) [DISTRIBUTION: Recent; western Atlantic.]. It is extant. It is the type species of Lindapecten.

It was recombined as Aequipecten muscosus by Richards (1962), Woodring (1982) and Marquet and Dijkstra (2000); it was recombined as Lindapecten muscosus by Petuch (1988) and Waller (2011).

  • Pecten fuscopurpureus was named by Conrad (1849) [DISTRIBUTION: Pleistocene-Recent; Western; Atlantic]. It is extant.

    It was recombined as Chlamys (Chlamys) fuscopurpureus by DuBar (1958); it was synonymized subjectively with Aequipecten muscosus by Woodring (1982).
  • Pecten exasperatus was named by Sowerby (1842). It is a 3D body fossil.

    It was synonymized subjectively with Aequipecten muscosus by Woodring (1982).
Synonymy list
YearName and author
1828Pecten fuscopurpureus Wood
1828Pecten muscosus Wood
1842Pecten exasperatus Sowerby
1849Pecten fuscopurpureus Conrad p. 209 figs. pl. 29, fig. 10
1958Chlamys (Chlamys) fuscopurpureus DuBar p. 158
1962Aequipecten muscosus Richards p. 55
1982Aequipecten muscosus Woodring p. 590
1988Lindapecten muscosus Petuch
2000Aequipecten muscosus Marquet and Dijkstra p. 40
2011Lindapecten muscosus Waller p. 79

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

EubilateriaAx 1987
subclassAutobranchia(Groblen 1894)
infraclassPteriomorphia(Beurlen 1944)
OstreomorphiFerussac 1822
OstreioniFerussac 1822
OstreataFerussac 1822
superorderOstreiformiiFerussac 1822
orderPectinida(Gray 1854)
suborderPectinidina(Adams and Adams 1858)
superfamilyPectinoideaRafinesque 1815
PectinoidaeRafinesque 1815
familyPectinidaeWilkes 1810
subfamilyPectininaeWilkes 1810
tribeAequipectinini(Nordsieck 1969)
genusLindapectenPetuch 1988
speciesmuscosus(Wood 1828)

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

No diagnoses are available