PBDB

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

Thecosmilia

Anthozoa - Scleractinia - Montlivaltiidae

Taxonomy

Thecosmilia was named by Milne-Edwards and Haime (1848) [Sepkoski's age data: J m K Maes Sepkoski's reference number: 796,806]. It is not extant.

It was assigned to Montlivaltiidae by Roniewicz (1976); and to Scleractinia by Sepkoski (2002).

Species lacking formal opinion data

T. choffati

View classification of included taxa

Synonyms

Montlivaltoides was named by He and Xiao (1990).

It was synonymized subjectively with Thecosmilia by Kiessling (2014).

It was assigned to Montlivaltiidae by Kiessling (2008).
Thecosmiliopsis was named by Lebanidze (1991).

It was synonymized subjectively with Thecosmilia by Kiessling (2014).

It was assigned to Montlivaltiidae by Lebanidze (1991).
Lepidophylliopsis was named by Beauvais and Stump (1976) [Sepkoski's age data: J Oxfo , J Kimm Sepkoski's reference number: 826]. It is not extant.

It was synonymized subjectively with Thecosmilia by Baron-Szabo (2009).

It was assigned to Stylophyllidae by Beauvais and Stump (1976); and to Scleractinia by Sepkoski (2002).

Synonymy list

Year	Name and author
1848	Thecosmilia Milne-Edwards and Haime
1976	Lepidophylliopsis Beauvais and Stump
1976	Thecosmilia Roniewicz
1990	Montlivaltoides He and Xiao
1991	Thecosmiliopsis Lebanidze
2002	Lepidophylliopsis Sepkoski, Jr.
2002	Thecosmilia Sepkoski, Jr.
2008	Montlivaltoides Kiessling

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

Rank	Name	Author
kingdom	Animalia	()
phylum	Cnidaria	Hatschek 1888
class	Anthozoa	Ehrenberg 1834
subclass	Zoantharia	de Blainville 1830
order	Scleractinia	Bourne 1900

Rank	Name	Author
suborder	Faviina	Vaughan and Wells 1943
superfamily	Faviicae	Gregory 1900
family	Montlivaltiidae	Dietrich 1926
genus	Thecosmilia	Milne-Edwards and Haime 1848

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.

Diagnosis

No diagnoses are available