Leach, W.E. (1815-1875). Malacostraca Podophthalmata Britanniae; or descriptions of such British species of the Linnean genus Cancer as have their eyes elevated on footstalks. Illustrated with figures of all species by John Sowerby, F.L.S. G.S. & W.S. &c. John Sowerby, Lambeth, London, 124 pp., pls. 1–45. [Part 1 (pls. 8, 14, 22): 1 January 1815; Part 2 (pls. 4, 15, 40): 1 March 1815; Part 3 (pls. 17, 28A, 28B): 1 May 1815; Part 4 (pls. 19, 29, 41): 1 July 1815; Part 5 (pls. 23, 30): 1 Sept. 1815; Part 6 (pls. 1, 2, 26): 1 November 1815; Part 7 (pls. 24, 36): 1 January 1816; Part 8 (pls. 3, 12, 13): 1 March 1816; Part 9 (pls. 7, 42, 43): 1 May 1816; Part 10 (Pps. 6, 31, 32): 1 July 1816; Part 11 (pls. 9, 11, 33): 1 September 1816; Part 12 (pls. 5, 21A, 21B): 1 November 1816; Part 1 (pls. 18, 20): 1 January 1817; Part 14 (pls. 10, 25, 44): 1 March 1817; Part 15 (pls. 22B, 37A, 37B): 1 July 1817; Part 16 (pls. 22C, 36, 39): 1 December 1817; Part 17 (pls. 9B, 10): 1 March 1820; Parts 18, 19 (pls. 9A, 24A, 27, 34, 35, 37C, 45): November 1875]. , available online athttps://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12003115#page/11/mode/1up[details]
DecaNet eds. (2024). DecaNet. Polybius Leach, 1820. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=106928 on 2024-11-27
original descriptionLeach, W.E. (1815-1875). Malacostraca Podophthalmata Britanniae; or descriptions of such British species of the Linnean genus Cancer as have their eyes elevated on footstalks. Illustrated with figures of all species by John Sowerby, F.L.S. G.S. & W.S. &c. John Sowerby, Lambeth, London, 124 pp., pls. 1–45. [Part 1 (pls. 8, 14, 22): 1 January 1815; Part 2 (pls. 4, 15, 40): 1 March 1815; Part 3 (pls. 17, 28A, 28B): 1 May 1815; Part 4 (pls. 19, 29, 41): 1 July 1815; Part 5 (pls. 23, 30): 1 Sept. 1815; Part 6 (pls. 1, 2, 26): 1 November 1815; Part 7 (pls. 24, 36): 1 January 1816; Part 8 (pls. 3, 12, 13): 1 March 1816; Part 9 (pls. 7, 42, 43): 1 May 1816; Part 10 (Pps. 6, 31, 32): 1 July 1816; Part 11 (pls. 9, 11, 33): 1 September 1816; Part 12 (pls. 5, 21A, 21B): 1 November 1816; Part 1 (pls. 18, 20): 1 January 1817; Part 14 (pls. 10, 25, 44): 1 March 1817; Part 15 (pls. 22B, 37A, 37B): 1 July 1817; Part 16 (pls. 22C, 36, 39): 1 December 1817; Part 17 (pls. 9B, 10): 1 March 1820; Parts 18, 19 (pls. 9A, 24A, 27, 34, 35, 37C, 45): November 1875]. , available online athttps://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12003115#page/11/mode/1up[details]
taxonomy sourceGarcía-Raso, E.; d'Udekem d'Acoz, C.; Moukrim, A.; Schubart, C.D.; Cuesta, J.A. (2024). A new cryptic species of Polybiidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunoidea) from the East Atlantic, with considerations on the genus <i>Polybius</i>. <em>European Journal of Taxonomy.</em> 930: 277-313., available online athttps://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2024.930.2501[details] Available for editors [request]
basis of recordTürkay, M. (2001). Decapoda, <B><I>in</I></B>: Costello, M.J. <i>et al.</i> (Ed.) (2001). <i>European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels,</i> 50: pp. 284-292 (look up in IMIS) [details]
additional sourceHowson, C.M. & B.E. Picton. (1997). The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. <em>Ulster Museum Publication, 276. The Ulster Museum: Belfast, UK. ISBN 0-948150-06-8.</em> vi, 508 (+ cd-rom) pp. (look up in IMIS) [details] Available for editors [request]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
Unreviewed
Synonymy The genera Liocarcinus, Macropipus, Necora and Polybius of recent authors are related, and are probably a monophyletic group, separate from other genera of the Polybiinae. In order to stabilise the nomenclature, all speceis of the four genera are placed in a single genus, Polybius, with four subgenera. Three of these have been named already: Polybius, Necora and Macropipus. The fourth one will be named by Froglia and Manning. [details] Synonymy A multitude of combinations have been used in the literature consulted; we've followed d'Udekem d'Acoz (1999) in his classification, and considered only his combinations as being valid. However, not all old combinations were explicitly mentioned in his work; since there is little doubt that the same taxa are ment, we placed them in synonymy. [details]