Zygopleura, Koken, 1892

Figs 31–59. Caenogastropods 1. – Figs 31–33. Zygopleura sp. – 31. Both specimens, ×5.5. – 32. Details of the earliest preserved whorls, ×13.5.– 33. The last whorl specimen from upper left corner of Fig. 31, ×7. – Figs 34–35. Procerithium (Rhabdocolpus)? aff. lorierei (Hebert et Deslongchamps, 1860). – 34. Full view, ×3.3. – 35. Magnified details, ×7. – Fig. 36. Magnified “best” view of Diatrypesis sp. 1, ×3.8. – Figs 37–40. Diatrypesis sp. 2. – 37–38. BHU2020I 10 specimen. – 37. Side view of full remnant, ×3.7. – 38. Details of pattern on the same specimen, ×7. – 39–40. BHU2020I 11 specimen. – 39. Side view of full remnant, ×4.2. – 40. Riblets on the earliest whorl of the same specimen, ×7.2.– Figs 41–42.Diatrypesis? sp.– 41.“Apertural” view of the available, flattened specimen,×1.7. – 42. Side view,×1.7. – Figs 43–59. Exelissa indiana n. sp.– 43–45. Holotype.– 43–44. Apertural, and abapertural view, ×4. – 45. Ornament details of the holotype in ×7.8 magnification. The holotype in Figs 43–44 and six paratypes (BHU2020I 14–19) in Figs 46–59 are equally magnified (×4) to demonstrate the high size variability among the full-grown shells. The same shells well show also the high shape, and ornament variability. The photo in Fig. 58 (BHU2020I 19) is taken parallel to the most frequent final peristome plane, ×6. – Fig. 59. Perpendicular view to the plane of the trumpet like peristome, ×6.2. Detailed data between the figures, the measurements, and the inventory numbers of the types are supplied above, in the species description