Raphitoma (Leufroyia) concinna ( Scacchi, 1836 )

Raphitoma (Leufroyia) concinna ( Scacchi, 1836) View in CoL

Figures 2F View Figure 2 , 3D and 21 - 23

Pleurotoma concinna Scacchi, 1836:12 View in CoL , Figure 18 View Figure 18 (fide Cretella et al. 2005)

Raphitoma concinna ( Scacchi, 1836) View in CoL - Rolán 1983; Sabelli et al. 1990; Öztürk et al. 2004; Høisaeter 2009; CLEMAM 2014; Gofas 2015b Defrancia Leufroyi Michaud - Jeffreys 1867 View in CoL ; Friele 1874; Norman 1879 non Pleurotoma leufroyi Michaud, 1828:121 View in CoL

Clathurella Leufroyi, Mich. - G.O. Sars 1878

Philbertia leufroyi (Michaud) - Hubendick & Warén 1976; Høisaeter 1986

Raphitoma leufroyi ( Michaud, 1828) View in CoL - Fretter & Graham 1985; Graham 1988; Cachia et al. 2001

Fusus Boothi Brown in J. Smith, 1839:98

Leufroyia Boothii, Brown - Monterosato 1884

Raphitoma boothii View in CoL (Brown in Smith, 1839) - Olsen 1994 Raphitoma (Leufroyia) boothii View in CoL (Brown in Smith, 1839) - van Aartsen et al. 1984; Smith & Heppell 1991; Heppell et al. 1997

Type material. Presumed lost ( Cretella et al. 2005)

Type locality. “ In sinu Neapolitano et Tarentino parum frequens ” ( Cretella et al. 2005).

Material examined. Sixty-two specimens from 31 stations from c. 58°N to 61°N on the coast of Norway. A single juvenile from Hjartøysundet, Bodø , Nordland county, 67°10.7’N, 14°20.3’E, 35 m, coarse shell gravel GoogleMaps .

Description. Based mainly on a specimen from Hillersholmen ( Figure 21 View Figure 21 ), 10.5 x 5.2 mm) and one from O-sundet ( Figure 23C View Figure 23 ), 11.2 x 4.6 mm. Maximum size of those measured, 12.1 mm (specimen from O-sundet, Figure 23A View Figure 23 ). Shell thick and opaque; height 2.04 to 2.45 times the diameter (for shells longer than 9.5 mm), thus extremely variable (compare Figure 21 View Figure 21 with Figure 23C View Figure 23 ). Body whorl 64-72 % (usually between 70 and 72 %) of total shell height. Shell colour variable, from dark brown to bright yellow, usually with dark spiral cords on a light-coloured background. Teleoconch whorls five (for 11-12 mm long specimens), convex with deep and distinct suture. Adapical teleoconch whorl 775-873 µm. Sculpture of numerous wide and dense axial ribs crossed by wide and low spiral cords, 12 on penultimate whorl. Distance between cords almost twice the width of the cord. Tubercles where cords cross axial ribs, low transverse swellings on ribs. Axial ribs fading out towards base, not discernible on siphonal canal. In some large shells hardly any ribs on body whorl. Siphonal canal of varying length usually short (but compare Figure 23F View Figure 23 with 26G). Shallow and wide anal sinus in outer lip near suture. Outer lip thickened but not denticulated. Microsculpture ( Figures 2F View Figure 2 and 21 View Figure 21 ) of growth lines and irregular rugae, never isolated pustules or granules. Protoconch (Figures 3D and 21) of three whorls, nine spiral rows of isolated ‘points’ on the apical 1½ whorl, the rest with diagonal diamonds as in other ‘multispiral’ species of Raphitoma . Diameter of apical whorl 225–250 µm. Apical angle 48°–54.5° (usually more than 50°). Protoconch W/L: 1.1. Protoconch colour same as teleoconch colour, usually with white apical tip ( Figure 21 View Figure 21 ). Radula illustrated in G.O. Sars (1878:Tab. VIII, Figure 3).

Remarks. Which name to use for this common species in the North Atlantic has been highly disputed. The North Atlantic taxon was originally named R. boothi (J. Smith, 1839), presumably without any comparison with Mediterranean relatives. Jeffreys (1867) compared British specimens with Mediterranean specimens of R. leufroyi and R. concinna . He concluded that the two were synonyms and that neither could be distinguished from R. boothi . R. leufroyi being the oldest should thus be the name to use. This decision has been adopted by most North European authors, and the species is listed as R. leufroyi in most check-lists from the region (e.g. Høisaeter 1986, Graham 1988, Seaward 1990). However, authors from the Mediterranean region have not necessarily agreed. Thus Monterosato (1884) explicitly considered R. boothi to be different from R. leufroyi, and R. concinna to be a species distinct from both. In his opinion the two latter are confined to the Mediterranean, whereas the former is found only in the North Atlantic, outside the Mediterranean. Both R. concinna and R. leufroyi were reported from Ria de Vigo on the northwestern coast of Spain by Rolán (1983), R. concinna being by far the most common of the two. Van Aartsen et al. (1984) also considered all three to be specifically distinct, separating R. boothi from R. leufroyi . They did not compare R. concinna with R. boothi . Cachia et al. (2001) do not mention R. boothi , but report both R. concinna and R. leufroyi from Maltese waters. Warén (pers. comm.) has not been able to find any morphological differences between the Mediterranean R. concinna and specimens from the North Atlantic. Recently Gofas (2015b) and CLEMAM (2015) have accepted R. boothi as a synonym of R. concinna , and the latter should thus be the valid name for the North Atlantic species. According to descriptions and available illustrations (e.g. van Aartsen et al. 1984; Cachia et al. 2001 and Rolán 2005) R. leufroyi has a characteristic colour pattern and very prominent axial ribs, not found in Norwegian material. I follow the recent consensus and regard all members of the subgenus Leufroyia from the North Atlantic outside the Mediterranean to belong to R. concinna ( Scacchi, 1836) , and R. boothi (J. Smith, 1839) to be a subjective synonym of R. concinna .