[Taxacom] I: pdf request
fabiocrocetta at alice.it
Fri Oct 24 04:14:22 CDT 2014
I have sent the same message with an attachment (Mangold and Hochberg 1991),
but Im not sure i twill arrive to you, so Im sending it without the
attachment (available on request)...
Da: Fabio Crocetta [mailto:fabiocrocetta at alice.it]
Inviato: venerdì 24 ottobre 2014 10.58
A: 'taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu'
Oggetto: pdf request
Im trying to understand if a type locality has been formally stated for
Octopus vulgaris. According to some authors, there is no type locality:
e.g.: Guerra et al. 2010
whilst according to others
e.g.: Soller et al.
it has been stated in two articles:
1 - Mangold and Hochberg 1991 - Defining the genus Octopus: redescription of
Octopus vulgaris. Bull mar Sci 49: p 665
2 - Mangold 1997. Octopus vulgaris: review of the biology. In: Lang MA,
Hochberg FG (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on ``The Fishery and Market
Potential of Octopus in California''. Smithonian Institution, Washington DC,
Warnke et al.
suggested that the type locality has been stated in Mangold & Hochberg,
whilst brief descriptions are available in Mangold (1997 and 1998).
1 Mangold & Hochberg 1991 (see up)
2 Mangold (1997) (see up)
3 MANGOLD, K., 1998: The Octopodinae from the eastern Atlantic Ocean and
the Mediterranean Sea. In: N.A. VOSS, M. VECCHIONE, R.B. TOLL & M.J.
SWEENEY (eds.): Systematics and Biogeography of Cephalopods. Smiths. Contr.
Zool., 586 (2), 521528.
The designation of a type locality in Mangold & Hochberg (1991) has been
also accepted by the following article (very recent):
De Luca et al., 2014. An integration of historical records and genetic data
to the assessment of global distribution and population structure in Octopus
vulgaris. Front. Ecol. Evol., 02 September 2014 | doi:
(free download from:
I have found Mangold & Hochberg (1991: see attachment) and it is an abstract
only. It seems to me that the statements from 1991 are not valid (they
declare that a full article should follow, but it was never published). Did
you agree on that? If so, it seems to me that Angel Guerra (the first
article) is right and that the type locality has never been established.
Another question: someone can provide to me pdfs of Mangold (1997) and
Mangold (1998) to check if Mangold stated there the formal designation of a
Thanks a lot for your kindness
More information about the Taxacom