Pseudonerinea ? pseudomelaniformis Gründel, Keupp, Lang & Nützel, 2022

Pseudonerinea? pseudomelaniformis Gründel, Keupp, Lang & Nützel, 2022 View in CoL

Plate 12: figs 4–6 View Plate 12

1965 – Pseudonerinea clio (d’Orbigny) View in CoL – Cox: 172, pl. 30, figs 5–6.

? 1997 – Ceritella ( Fibula) cottaldina (d’Orb.) View in CoL – Fischer and Weber: 31, pl. 4, fig. 10

2019 – Pseudomelania View in CoL ? sp. 2 – Gründel, Keupp and Lang: 100, pl. 1, figs 7–9.

* 2022 – Pseudonerinea? pseudomelaniformis View in CoL n. sp. – Gründel, Keupp, Lang and Nützel 2022: 183; pl. 2, figs 1–7.

Material.

27 specimens, illustrated specimens SNSB-BSPG 2016 XXI 1894 –1895.

Description.

Shell very slender; a specimen is 32 mm high; whorls high; whorl face straight; suture slightly impressed; transition from whorl face to base evenly rounded; whorls smooth, at least on later whorls; aperture damaged, high oval with adapical outlet and an oblique siphonal abapical canal; inner columellar lip widened and detached.

Remarks.

Many species with a similar shell shape have been described, particularly in the genus Pseudomelania . Without knowledge of the aperture (it is unknown or insufficiently known in most cases), a comparison of these species is only possible to a limited extent.

Nudivagus ? sp. 2 sensu Gründel et al. (2019) has a wider shell with lower whorls, a spiral sculpture on the whorl face, and lacks a widened and detached columellar inner lip. Ceritella ( Fibula) cottaldina (d’Orbigny) as depicted by Fischer and Weber (1997) is larger according to its holotype, but shows no other significant differences. The shape of the aperture is unclear: According to d’Orbigny (1851), it is broadly rounded abapically, however according to Fischer and Weber (1997), it shows the onset of a (not preserved?) channel. If P. cottaldina has an abapical canal, then it is probably identical to P. pseudomelaniformis .