Raphitoma Bellardi, 1847

Genus Raphitoma Bellardi, 1847 View in CoL

Type species - Raphitoma histrix Bellardi, 1847 (S.D. Monterosato 1872); Mediterranean Pliocene fossil. (See below and discussion in van Aartsen et al. 1984:88).

Cordieria Monterosato, 1884 View in CoL , non Roualt, 1848.

Cirillia Monterosato, 1884 View in CoL , non Rondani, 1856. Cenodagreutes E.H. Smith, 1967 View in CoL .

Leufroyia Monterosato, 1884 .

Lineotoma Nordsieck, 1977 View in CoL , nomen novum pro Cirillia Monterosato, 1884 View in CoL , non Rondani, 1856.

Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 View in CoL .

Members of Raphitoma View in CoL are distinguished from other genera in the family by having a small to medium sized, elongated, turreted shell with uniformly convex whorls. Pronounced reticulate sculpture of strong axial ribs and strong spiral cords. A characteristic multispiral, cancellated, ‘raphitomine’ protoconch of 3 to 4 whorls (or similar species with paucispiral protoconchs).

Remarks. Northeast Atlantic species of this group have been shuttled between a host of different ‘genera’ during the last two centuries. Pleurotoma , Mangelia , Defrancia , Clathurella , Raphitoma have, at various times since the 1820ies been used for members of the group. Raphitoma was used in a wide sense by Bellardi (1847), but this usage was apparently not adopted by any of his contemporaries. Marshall (1912) settled for Clathurella , as Defrancia , preferred by Jeffreys (1867) was preoccupied. Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 (introduced by Monterosato in 1884 as a section within his new, but preoccupied, genus Cordieria ) was adopted by Thiele (1929) as the most comprehensive genus-name for these species, with four subgenera and a number of sections. Raphitoma was regarded as a synonym of Mangelia Risso, 1826 by Thiele. (Curiously G.O. Sars 1878 had ‘reintroduced’ Raphitoma as a name for Teretia spp ). Powell (1966) interpreted Philbertia more or less in the same way as Thiele. He used Raphitoma , for only two species, the Fossil Pleurotoma hystrix de Cristofori & Jan, 1832 (cited as type species) and the Recent Clathurella pseudohystrix Sykes, 1906 . Powell compared Raphitoma with the Indo-Pacific Veprecula Melvill, 1917 whose teleoconch sculpture is similar but with a different (non-raphitomine) protoconch sculpture. Powell did not directly compare his two Raphitoma species with the numerous North East Atlantic and Mediterranean species he included in Philbertia .

Based on the authority of Thiele and Powell, Philbertia has been universally accepted as the common name for all European species of Raphitoma sensu Bouchet & Gofas 2015 , until van Aartsen et al. (1984) decided that species with a planktotrophic protoconch needed a separate name. As Pleurotoma philberti (Michaud, 1829) , the type species of Philbertia has a paucispiral protoconch, species with a multispiral protoconch should in their opinion be renamed. Van Aartsen et al. (1984) thus resurrected Raphitoma with Raphitoma histrix Bellardi, 1847 , as type species.

Bouchet (1990) presented convincing arguments against placing species with planktotrophic protoconchs in different genera from similar-looking species with paucispiral protoconchs. This opinion has won almost universal approval (e.g. Oliverio 1996, Rolán et al. 1998, Pusateri et al. 2012). The reasoning used by van Aartsen et al. (1984) for introducing Raphitoma as a substitute for Philbertia for the species with a multispiral protoconch is thus unnecessary. However, as Raphitoma has priority it was reintroduced as the common name for this group, almost by default (it was not mentioned in Bouchet 1990).

The type species, Raphitoma histrix is a Mediterranean Pliocene fossil, originally known by a nomen nudum: Pleurotoma hystrix de Cristofori & Jan, 1832 which was the name used for the type species by Monterosato (1872). Van Aartsen et al. (1984:89) point out that this nomen nudum was validated, in a slightly different spelling, as Raphitoma histrix , by Bellardi (1847:85). However, the correct identification of R. histrix has proved to be difficult, as the several specimens figured under this name apparently represent a number of different species. The specimen figured as Raphitoma histrix by Bellardi (1847) must be considered lost (van Aartsen et al. 1984). Van Aartsen et al. proposed to accept a specimen of Pleurotoma hystrix De Cristofori & Jan, 1832 , photographed by Pinna (1971) and later by Pinna & Spezia (1978) as a ‘syntype’, as lectotype for the species. This solution to the problem is based on a number of unprovable assumptions, and will have to be discussed in a wider context by Mediterranean authors. Probably the matter is best served by designating a neotype.

Species descriptions

Below follows a description of each of the species found in inshore Norwegian waters. One species, R. cf. echinata is

included in the key and illustrated, but not treated in detail, as it is not yet verified from the region defined as ‘Norwegian’ in this work (see Material and Methods above.).

Key to Norwegian members of Raphitoma .

1a. Protoconch with four whorls, microsculpture small granules or pustules or smooth ...................................... 2

2a. Microsculpture of isolated small pustules ............... 3

3a. Shell with white ground colour and purplish

spiral cords. Narrow shells ..................... R. aequalis 3b. Shell completely white (or colourless). Wide

shells .................................................... R. obesa n.sp.

2b. Microsculpture of small granules more or less merging together ............................................. R. linearis 2c. Shell surface smooth and glossy, macrosculpture

‘spiky’ ....................................................... R. cf. echinata

1b. Protoconch with max. 3.5 whorls, microsculpture different .......................................................................... 4

4a. Apex wide, axial ribs if present, wavy, fading

away near aperture ........................................ R. concinna 4b. Axial ribs strong and regular, detectable on siphonal canal ................................................................. 5

5a. Shell with elongated siphonal canal

....................... R. maculosa n.sp. 5b. Solid shells with thickened outer lip with internal teeth .......................................... R. purpurea