Integrated Taxonomic Information System - Report
Go to Print Version

Lutra monticolus  Hodgson, 1839
Taxonomic Serial No.: 1086164

(Download Help) Lutra monticolus TSN 1086164

 Taxonomy and Nomenclature
       
  Kingdom: Animalia  
  Taxonomic Rank: Species  
  Common Name(s):    
  Valid Name: Lutra lutra monticola Hodgson, 1839
 
       
  Taxonomic Status:    
  Current Standing: invalid - original name/combination   
       
  Data Quality Indicators:    
  Record Credibility Rating: verified - standards met  
       

 References
       
  Expert(s):    
  Expert:    
  Notes:    
  Reference for:    
       
  Other Source(s):    
  Source:    
  Acquired:    
  Notes:    
  Reference for:    
       
  Publication(s):    
  Author(s)/Editor(s): Ellerman, J. R., and T. C. S. Morrison-Scott  
  Publication Date: 1966   
  Article/Chapter Title:    
  Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.: Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946, 2nd edition   
  Page(s): 810   
  Publisher: Alden Press   
  Publication Place: Oxford, England   
  ISBN/ISSN: 0565004484   
  Notes: Available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8727652   
  Reference for: Lutra monticolus   
       
  Author(s)/Editor(s): Hodgson, B. H.  
  Publication Date: 1839   
  Article/Chapter Title: Summary description of four new species of Otter   
  Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 8, no. 88   
  Page(s): 319-320   
  Publisher:    
  Publication Place:    
  ISBN/ISSN:    
  Notes: Available online at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40036404 ; reprinted later in Annals of Natural History, vol. 5, pp.27-29   
  Reference for: original description   
       

 Geographic Information
       
  Geographic Division:    
       
  Jurisdiction/Origin:    
 

 

    

 Comments
       
  Comment: It is apparent that when publishing this name Hodgson treated Lutra as masculine, based on the species epithets he used (monticolus, indigitatus, 'auro-brunneus'). Nevertheless, Lutra is feminine, and the names must be adjusted accordingly (additionally, there is a question of whether the epithet monticola should ever be declined as -us or -um, but that would not change the conclusion here to use Lutra monticola), as in Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951 & 1966: 277)  
 

 

    

 
 Subordinate Taxa  Rank  Verified Standards Met  Verified Min Standards Met  Unverified Percent Standards Met
 
LOADING...
 

A gray graphic bar
Search on:  Any Name or TSN  Common Name  Scientific Name  TSN
     


Disclaimer: ITIS taxonomy is based on the latest scientific consensus available, and is provided as a general reference source for interested parties. However, it is not a legal authority for statutory or regulatory purposes. While every effort has been made to provide the most reliable and up-to-date information available, ultimate legal requirements with respect to species are contained in provisions of treaties to which the United States is a party, wildlife statutes, regulations, and any applicable notices that have been published in the Federal Register. For further information on U.S. legal requirements with respect to protected taxa, please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

A gray bar