| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG taxon detailsSpissitydeus Iredale, 1936
marine,
recent + fossil
Rec. Aust. Mus., 19
page(s): 329 [details]
Taxonomic remark From Oskars et al., 2019: Spissitydeus was erected by Iredale (1936) for Atys pransa Hedley, 1904, on the basis of the...
Taxonomic remark From Oskars et al., 2019: Spissitydeus was erected by Iredale (1936) for Atys pransa Hedley, 1904, on the basis of the presence of a thick pearshaped shell, with a thickened columella and lip, an umbilicus and a sunken spire. The genus was later considered to be a junior synonym of Aliculastrum by Higo et al. (1999) without any comment, but the holotype (a shell) of A. pransa (Hedley 1904: 191, pl. 9, figs 21, 22; AMS c.17966) does not match the features of Aliculastrum (Too et al. 2014). Iredale (1936) commented that Osorattis was unlikely to be close to Atys, and Burn (1978) raised doubts on whether this species belonged in Haminoeidae. In our opinion, the shell resembles those of the species in the genus Pyrunculus, family Retusidae. The shell of Spissitydeus pransus shows no similarities with those of Haminoeidae genera, and we here suggest its inclusion in the family Retusidae. Only the study of novel complete specimens and their inclusion in a molecular phylogenetic framework can ultimately confirm the validity and taxonomic affiliation of the genus. [details]
IRMNG (2024). Spissitydeus Iredale, 1936. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1151919 on 2024-11-16
Date action by 2016-11-22 09:43:47Z changed db_admin
original description
Rec. Aust. Mus., 19
page(s): 329 [details] basis of record Neave, S. A. and successors. (1939-2004). Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1-10 online. [developed by uBio, hosted online at MBLWHOI Library]. Previously at http://ubio.org/NomenclatorZoologicus/ (URL no longer current). , available online at https://insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nomenclator_zoologicus_PDF.htm [details] verified source for family Oskars, T. R.; Too, C. C.; Rees, D.; Mikkelsen, P. M.; Willassen, E.; Malaquias, M. A. E. (2019). A molecular phylogeny of the gastropod family Haminoeidae sensu lato (Heterobranchia: Cephalaspidea): a generic revision. <em>Invertebrate Systematics.</em> 33(2): 426-472., available online at https://doi.org/10.1071/is18051 [details] name verified source Neave, S. A. and successors. (1939-2004). Nomenclator Zoologicus, vols. 1-10 online. [developed by uBio, hosted online at MBLWHOI Library]. Previously at http://ubio.org/NomenclatorZoologicus/ (URL no longer current). , available online at https://insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nomenclator_zoologicus_PDF.htm [details] current name source Oskars, T. R.; Too, C. C.; Rees, D.; Mikkelsen, P. M.; Willassen, E.; Malaquias, M. A. E. (2019). A molecular phylogeny of the gastropod family Haminoeidae sensu lato (Heterobranchia: Cephalaspidea): a generic revision. <em>Invertebrate Systematics.</em> 33(2): 426-472., available online at https://doi.org/10.1071/is18051 [details] extant flag source as per synonymized taxon [details] habitat flag source WoRMS (Mar 2013) [details] Unreviewed
Taxonomic remark From Oskars et al., 2019: Spissitydeus was erected by Iredale (1936) for Atys pransa Hedley, 1904, on the basis of the presence of a thick pearshaped shell, with a thickened columella and lip, an umbilicus and a sunken spire. The genus was later considered to be a junior synonym of Aliculastrum by Higo et al. (1999) without any comment, but the holotype (a shell) of A. pransa (Hedley 1904: 191, pl. 9, figs 21, 22; AMS c.17966) does not match the features of Aliculastrum (Too et al. 2014). Iredale (1936) commented that Osorattis was unlikely to be close to Atys, and Burn (1978) raised doubts on whether this species belonged in Haminoeidae. In our opinion, the shell resembles those of the species in the genus Pyrunculus, family Retusidae. The shell of Spissitydeus pransus shows no similarities with those of Haminoeidae genera, and we here suggest its inclusion in the family Retusidae. Only the study of novel complete specimens and their inclusion in a molecular phylogenetic framework can ultimately confirm the validity and taxonomic affiliation of the genus. [details]
|
