Hypselostoma fruhstorferi Möllendorff, 1897

Hypselostoma fruhstorferi Möllendorff, 1897

Figs 111 U View Figure 111 , 138 View Figure 138 , 139 View Figure 139 , 140 View Figure 140

Hypselostoma fruhstorferi Möllendorff, 1897: 70–71. View in CoL

Gyliauchen fruhstorferi — Pilsbry 1917: 217, pl. 37, figs 1–3; van Benthem Jutting 1950: 46.

Gyliotrachela concreta van Benthem Jutting, 1949 a: 64–65 View in CoL , fig. 1. syn. nov.

Gyliotrachela concreta View in CoL — van Benthem Jutting 1950: 44.

Gyliotrachela fruhstorferi View in CoL — van Benthem Jutting 1952: 318; Zilch 1984: 165.

Type material examined.

Indonesia • lectotype of H. fruhstorferi ; SMF 4580 About SMF • 5 paralectotypes of H. fruhstorferi ; SMF 4581 About SMF • 16 paratypes of G. concreta ; from the type locality; Sept. 1948; G. A. Tammes-Bolt leg.; RMNH. Moll. 137155 .

Additional material examined.

Indonesia • 5 shells; Sulawesi, South-Sulawesi, Lemo SE of Rantepao; 700 m a. s. l.; May 1995; W. J. M. Maassen leg.; coll. PGB • 2 shells; Lesser Sunda islands, Rintja island , ca 1 mile S Rintja village, mouth of cave; Apr. 1994; W. Auffenberg leg.; UF 220736 .

Type localities.

“ Java ” (Djampang, Java, Indonesia) ( H. fruhstorferi ); “ Sulawesi, Main road from Makalé to Kalossi, South Celebes, 700–800 m alt. ” ( G. concreta ).

Differential diagnosis.

This species is probably most similar to the geographically distant H. khaowongense and for differences, see under that species.

Distribution.

This species in known from Lesser Sunda islands, Java and Sulawesi islands, Indonesia.

Remarks.

Slightly variable smaller barriers. Some specimens of G. concreta had two and some three barriers between the lower palatal and columellar one. Interpalatal plica can be well developed or weaker.

We observed no differences between the type specimens of G. concreta and H. fruhstorferi . Van Benthem Jutting (1949 a) compared the newly described G. concreta with H. fruhstorferi but her decision was based on variable characters such as the level of detachment of the last whorl, broadness of the last whorl (which is, by us, not observed as different between the types) and level of keel development (namely slightly weaker in G. concreta , but this difference is very slight). We treat all these differences as intraspecific variability.