1908  Varioclymenia Wedekind: 605.
     1914  Varioclymenia.- Wedekind: 29.
     1923  Varioclymenia.- Schindewolf: 63.
     1929  Platyclymenia (Varioclymenia).- Lange: 94.
     1934  Platyclymenia (Platyclymenia).- Schindewolf: 340.
     2000  Platyclymenia (Varioclymenia).-Becker: 49.

Type species: [Varioclymenia] Clymenia pompeckii Wedekind, 1908, p.607 [SD by Matern, 1931, p.97].

Nikolaeva & Bogoslovskii, 2005: Varioclymenia: Price and Korn (1989) carefully discussed complex taxonomy of this genus and proposed a neotype for the type species of the genus Platyclymenia annulata. Wedekind (1908, 1914), Lange (1929), and Schindewolf (1934) subdivided the genus Platyclymenia into groups based on the differences in ornamentation. Wedekind (1908, 1914) proposed a genus Varioclymenia to include platyclymeniids, mostly from the delphinus Zone, in which the growth striae on the flank of adult shells are straight. This diagnosis was repeatedly criticised because the direction of striae is highly variable even within the same species. Wedekind (1914) proposed to assign species, in which striae form lateral and ventral sinuses, to the genus Platyclymenia. Between Varioclymenia in such interpretation and Platyclymenia there are many intermediate forms, especially when only phragmocones are preserved. However, attempts have been made to preserve Varioclymenia, e.g. as a subgenus, using new diagnoses to suit this taxonomic proposal. Schindewolf (1923a) at first rejected this genus, but when preparing the proofs of his paper, he assigned some species to Varioclymenia (see his footnotes). Slightly later he (Schindewolf, 1923b) assigned all platyclymeniids lacking parabolic ribs to Varioclymenia. Lange (1929), although correctly saying that the presence of parabolic ribs cannot be a reliable character, especially in young shells, did not completely reject Varioclymenia, but suggested to consider this taxon to be a subgenus of Platyclymenia, including species without expressed parabolic ribs on the flanks and with striae that are not bent on the flanks in adults. Interpreted in such way, the genus Varioclymenia became even vaguer, which was evident to Lange himself (Lange, 1929, p. 94), because it included species very different in the shell shape and with the highly variable ornamentation. Matern (1931) proposed Platyclymenia pompeckii Wedekind as a type species of Varioclymenia. Schindewolf (1934) analyzed large material and eventually rejected Varioclymenia. He suggested assigning platyclymeniids to the subgenera Platyclymenia, Pleuroclymenia, and Trigonoclymenia, different in the shape and direction of the ribs on the flanks (curved in Platyclymenia, straight in Pleuroclymenia, and forming parabolic structures in Trigonoclymenia). Price and Korn (1989) came to a similar conclusion. Of three Schindewolf's subgenera, Pleuroclymenia is considered to be a genus in its own right by most authors, whereas two other subgenera are often considered to be subgenera of Platyclymenia. Based on the study of large material from Kazakhstan we concluded that Trigonoclymenia and Platyclymenia should be considered as separated genera.
To preserve the name Varioclymenia, Becker (2000) again emended the diagnosis of this taxon and suggested using it as a subgenus of Platyclymenia. He stated that Varioclymenia should include species lacking parabolic ribs and with volutions, in which the height is either equal to the width or less than it. This diagnosis allowed Becker to assign species from the Prolobites delphinus Zone to Varioclymenia, and to assign the geochronologically later species to different genera. However, Lange and Schindewolf already mentioned that the subdivision of platyclymeniids into genera and subgenera based on the shape of the cross section is poorly justified because of the presence of multiple intermediate forms. In our opinion, attempts to preserve the subgenus Varioclymenia serve purely stratigraphic purpose and this group of taxa is artificial. In fact, species of this subgenus do not differ in any significant way from the stratigraphically younger species of Platyclymenia and can be considered to be members of the same genus. [Contribution SVN abbreviated].