It's a big step from saying the volume number is incorrect to saying that the paper doesn't exist at all (& Stho002 professes that he has seen a copy, which would seem to argue for its existence). I'm also concerned that you're repeating the earlier error of original research, as I stated before. It is your opinion that the names are erroneous; you have not got that information from a reliable source. I know it seems ridiculous, but we simply can't impose our own opinions, particularly when we have so few sources to go on. We know the 2010 catalogue to be out of date, so we turn to WoRMS as the only up-to-date source available, and it's normally pretty reliable. The current text states "the volume number and year of the article cited do not match", and cites this page (presumably intending this page), but neither page states that "the volume number and year of the article cited do not match". This is original research on your part, and cannot stand.