Originally incorrectly proposed as "Cyclotella schambica (Eulenst.) Aleschinskaja et Pirumova, comb. nov." with a reference to "C[yclotella]. castracanei Eulenst. Atlas der Diatomaceenkund[e], 1874, Tafel 225, N 7". Authors explicitly cited 'holotype' and based their new taxa on fossil material in spite of extant ones; in addition, authors cited only part of the original protologue of previously validly published C. castracanei Eulenst. ex Fricke (in A.F.W. Schmidt, Atlas Diatom. Series V, Heft 57: tab 225, fig. 7, although tab. 225: figs. 1-6 were not included in the new fossil taxon), which does not allow to consider them as nomenclatural synonyms. The new fossil-species is accepted as a new one, not based on the previously published name (not having 'basionym').