Leufroyia Monterosato, 1884

Subgenus Leufroyia Monterosato, 1884

Type species. Pleurotoma leufroyi Michaud, 1828 View in CoL , S.D.

Crosse (1885) (fide Pusateri et al. 2012). Recent, Mediterranean

coast of France.

Diagnosis. Raphitomids with broad, wavy axial ribs; dense and numerous, low spiral cords (three to four on adapical teleoconch whorl). Microsculpture of dense, rather conspicuous growth lines, or rugae, no granules or pustules. Protoconch with three or four whorls, the apical one wider (at c. 220 to 250 µm diameter) and lower than in the ‘multispiral’ species in the Raphitoma group, and with a weak, incipient rounded keel for a quarter of a whorl at the transition to the teleoconch. The characteristic cancellated sculpture covers 1½ of these whorls, while the apical 1½ whorls are covered by eight to nine punctuated spiral striae.

Remarks. Leufroyia was introduced by Monterosato (1884) as one of two genera, the other being Cordieria ( Monterosato, 1884) , encompassing Raphitoma sensu Bouchet & Gofas 2015 .The diagnosis was brief (“Gruppo ben distinto ad anfratti rigonfi, costati, spiralmente striati; bocca ingrossata internamente, levigata, senza denti nè solchi”) [“Distinct group with convex whorls, with costae, spirally striated; aperture inflated, internally smooth, without teeth or grooves”]. Most of these descriptive terms could be applied to many other species of Raphitoma s.l. However the group was well distinguished by the three species included, R. leufroyi , R. concinna ( Scacchi, 1836) and R. erronea ( Monterosato, 1884) . Later authors have used Leufroyia both as a genus and a subgenus, but have apparently had difficulties in specifying the morphological characters distinguishing the taxon. Defined by van Aartsen et al. (1984:91) as: “...species with noncarinate, but still diagonally cancellate protoconch whorls,...”; by Campani (1999): “Protoconch multispiral of four whorls, with diagonally cancellated sculpture on at least the two lower whorls, not carinate but regularly rounded.” [translated from Italian]; and by Cachia et al. (2001:63): “Protoconch consisting of three rounded whorls, first blunt, last two cancellated, rather oblique ribs on body whorl”. In my opinion (based on the Norwegian material), the main diagnostic morphological characters are the details of the (micro)sculpture as specified above. The protoconch is certainly different from other Raphitoma species, but the number of whorls and the presence or absence of a terminal keel might be of specific rather than generic value, as evidenced by the SEM-photo in Campani (1999) of a protoconch belonging to R. leufroyi which is very similar to my R. concinna , but with four rather than three whorls, and no visible keel.

A single Norwegian species is referable to the subgenus.