Hi Victor,
Yes, it is not unusual to find such inconsistencies in WoRMS. I've repaired your one, by making Mysta valid, which is apparently its status. I don't know why we were confused over it.
Pleijel (1991) treated Mysta as a synonym of Eteone, although Wilson (1988) had kept them separate. I see that Hartmann-Schröder (1996) and others used it as subgenus Eteone (Mysta). Later Pleijel again used Mysta as valid at full genus in Kato et al. (2001) and listed the species of Mysta. As far as I know there has been no change since and no additions to the genus.
Kato et al. http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/en/periodiques/zoosystema/23/1/une-nouvelle-espece-de-mysta-annelida-polychaeta-phyllodocidae-du-japon
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Surugiu
Sent: Wednesday, 26 July 2017 3:43 a.m.
To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: [Annelida] Eteone picta vs. Mysta picta
Dear Anneliders,
What is the accepted binomen for the Quatrefages' (1866) picta: Eteone picta Quatrefages, 1866 or Mysta picta (Quatrefages, 1866)? Looking into WoRMS we can fiind that Eteone picta Quatrefages, 1866 is unaccepted, being a superseded original combination. So we are directed to the accepted name Mysta picta (Quatrefages, 1866). However, looking for the genus Mysta Malmgren, 1865 we fiind that it is the subjective synonym of <http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=129443>
Eteone Savigny, 1818.
Hoping someone can break for me this vicious loop,
Victor Surugiu
Universitatea "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" din Iasi
Facultatea de Biologie
B-dul Carol I, nr. 20A
700507 Iasi
Romania
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
