Ptychopotamides cinctus (Bruguière, 1792)

Harzhauser, Mathias, Guzhov, Aleksandr & Landau, Bernard, 2023, A revision and nomenclator of the Cainozoic mudwhelks (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda: Batillariidae, Potamididae) of the Paratethys Sea (Europe, Asia), Zootaxa 5272 (1), pp. 1-241 : 108-113

Ptychopotamides cinctus (Bruguière, 1792)

Figs 19A–H

* Cerithium cinctum —Bruguière 1792: 493.

C [erithium]. papaveraceum Nob. —de Basterot 1825: 56.

C [erithium]. tricinctum Br. — Pusch 1836: 528 [non Brocchi, 1814].

Cerithium tricinctum Brocchi — Pusch 1837: 149 [non Brocchi, 1814].

[ Cerithium ] tricinctum Brocc — Ĥrnes 1848: 21 [non Brocchi, 1814].

[ Cerithium ] subcinctum d’Orb. 1847 —d’Orbigny 1852: 80, nr. 1465.

Cerithium papaveraceum Bast. — Ĥrnes 1855: 403, pl. 42, fig. 8.

? Cerithium Lamarcki [sic] Brongn.—Ģmbel 1861: 754 [non Brongniart, 1810].

? [ Cerithium ] Lamarckii [sic] Desh.— Fuchs 1868: 217 [non Brongniart, 1810].

[ Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus Bast. ] var. Grundensis Sacc.— Sacco 1895: 44.

Cerithium (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Basterot) — Schaffer 1908: 114, pl. 11, fig. 20.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Basterot) — Vignal 1911: 164.

Cerithium (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus Bast. var. Grundensis Scc.— Schaffer 1912: 156, pl. 52, fig. 8.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Basterot) — Cossmann & Peyrot 1922: 243, pl. 6, fig. 1.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) Pappi n. sp. — Gábor 1936: 2, pl. 1, fig. 2.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Bast.) — Sieber 1937: 478.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus Basterot — Stchepinsky 1941: 28, pl. 5, figs 16–17.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Basterot) — Glibert 1949: 136, pl. 9, fig. 3.

Potamides (Potamides) lamarcki [sic] (Brongniart)— Anić 1952: 39, pl. 10, figs 8–9 [non Brongniart, 1810].

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus Bast. — Csepreghy-Meznerics 1954: 20, pl. 1, figs 27, 29.

Ptychopotamides papaveraceus Bast. — Strausz 1954: 97, pl. 2, fig. 24.

Ptychopotamides papaveraceus Basterot — Strausz 1955a: 159.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) pappi Gábor 1936 — Boda 1964: 132.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Bast.) — Kókay 1966: 41, pl. 3, fig. 25.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus Basterot, 1825 — Strausz 1966: 158, pl. 5, figs 30–32, pl. 6, fig. 1.

Potamides (Potamides) lamarcki [sic] (Brongniart)— Moisescu 1972: 88, pl. 29, fig. 19 [non Brongniart, 1810].

Potamides lamarcki margaritaceus n. ssp. — Báldi & Cságoly 1975: 137 [nomen nudum].

Potamides lamarcki margaritaceus Cságoly — Báldi & Steininger 1975: 344, pl. 10, fig. 4 [nomen nudum].

Potamides (Potamides) lamarcki [sic] Brongniart, 1810 — Janssen 1984: 125 [non Brongniart, 1810].

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus (Basterot) — Schultz 1998: 54, pl. 20, fig. 15.

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus ( Basterot, 1825) — Harzhauser & Kowalke 2001: 360, fig. 4.1.

Ptychopotamides papaveraceus ( Basterot, 1825) —Harzhauser 2002: 75, pl. 1, fig. 21.

Tympanotonos cinctus (Bruguière) — Lozouet et al. 2001a: 26, pl. 9, fig. 6.

Potamides lamarcki [sic] ( Brongniart, 1810)— Mikuž 2003: 97, pl. 3, figs 8–9 [non Brongniart, 1810].

Tympanotonos cinctus (Bruguière, 1792) — Harzhauser 2003: 194.

Tympanotonos cinctus — Latal et al. 2006: 98, fig. 4.

Tympanotonos conjunctoturris ( Sacco, 1895) — Ýslamoðlu 2008: 272, fig. 6L [non Sacco, 1895].

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus ( Basterot, 1825) — Esu & Girotti 2010: 156, pl. 5, figs 8–9.

Potamides girondicus (Majer, 1878 [sic])— Katona et al. 2011: 8 [non Mayer, 1878b].

Ptychopotamides cinctus (Bruguière, 1792) — Brunetti 2013: 75, fig 12I.

Ptychopotamides papaveraceus ( Basterot, 1825) — Harzhauser et al. 2015: 167, fig. 3/5.

Tympanotonus margaritaceus Brocchi, 1814 —Ģrsoy 2017: 79, pl. 1, figs 4a–c [non Brocchi, 1814].

Potamides (Ptychopotamides) conjunctoturris ( Sacco, 1895) — Vicián et al. 2019: 150, pl. 1, fig. 1 [non Sacco, 1895].

Type material. We are not aware of the whereabouts of the type specimens.

Type locality. Montpellier ( France) (fide Deshayes 1864: 179) .

Stratigraphy. Early Miocene.

Illustrated material. NHMW 2022/0023/0001, Sainte-Maure de Touraine ( France), SL: 62.4 mm, MD: 16.3 mm, Natural History Museum Vienna ( Austria), Figs 19A 1 –A 2; NHMW 1851/0026/0046, SL: 77.8 mm, MD: 13.6 mm, Natural History Museum Vienna ( Austria), Grund ( Austria), Middle Miocene, Badenian, illustrated in Ĥrnes (1855: pl. 42, fig. 8), holotype of Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus grundensis Sacco, 1895 , Figs 19B 1 –B 2; NHMW 2022/0024/0001, SL: 52.5 mm, MD: 14.2 mm, Natural History Museum Vienna ( Austria), Máriahalom ( Hungary), late Oligocene/Early Miocene, Egerian, Figs 19C 1 –C 2; NHMW 2022/0026/0001, SL: 61.8 mm, MD: 16.6 mm, Natural History Museum Vienna ( Austria), Grund ( Austria), Middle Miocene, Badenian, Fig. 19D; MNHN.F.A70851 (coll. de Basterot/Brongniart), SL: 41.0 mm, MD: 13.0 mm, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris ( France), Mérignac (Gironde), Burdigalian, Early Miocene, syntype of Cerithium papaveraceum de Basterot 1825 , Fig. 19E (photo: Philippe Loubry, MNHN/CNRS).. NHMW 2022/0131/0001, Teiritzberg ( Austria), Early Miocene, Karpatian, Fig. 19F. NHMW 2022/0194/0001, SL: 40.7 mm, MD: 11.6 mm, Guntersdorf ( Austria), early Badenian, Figs 19G 1 –G 2. NHMW 2022/0194/0002, SL: 59.8 mm, MD: 18.3 mm, Guntersdorf ( Austria), early Badenian, Figs 19H 1 –H 2.

Studied material. Egerian (late Oligocene/Early Miocene): 6 spec., NHMW 1976/1816/0002, Máriahalom ( Hungary) ; 7 spec., NHMW 2022/0024/0002, Máriahalom ( Hungary) ; 12 spec., NHMW 2022/0024/0003, Máriahalom ( Hungary) ; Eggenburgian (Early Miocene): 1 spec., NHMW 1909/0004/0027, Nonndorf ( Austria) , illustrated in Schaffer (1912: pl. 52, fig.8); 11 spec., NHMW 1890/0025/0009, Nonndorf ( Austria) ; Karpatian (Early Miocene): 15 spec., NHMW 1846/0037/0372, Niederkreuzstetten ( Austria) ; 15 spec., NHMW 1997z0178/0640, Niederkreuzstetten ( Austria) ; 5 spec., NHMW 1861/0050/0111, Niederkreuzstetten ( Austria) ; 17 spec., NHMW 1861/0050/0152, Grossrussbach ( Austria) ; 3 spec., NHMW 1864/0001/0541, Grossrussbach ( Austria) ; 3 spec., NHMW 1846/0036/0373, Kleinebersdorf ( Austria) ; 3 spec., NHMW 1866/0050/0052, Karnabrunn ( Austria) ; 1 spec., NHMW 1997z0178/0617, Ŗckersdorf ( Austria) ; 1 spec., NHMW 1861/0050/0016, Ŗckersdorf ( Austria) ; NHMW 1997z0178/0607, 26 spec., Teiritzberg ( Austria) ; Badenian (Middle Miocene): 1 spec., NHMW 1937/0002/0302, Grund ( Austria) , illustrated in Schaffer (1908, pl. 11, fig. 20); 1 spec., NHMW 1861/0035/0028, Kalladorf ( Austria) ; 1 spec., NHMW 1851/0026/0046, Grund ( Austria) , holotype of Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus grundensis Sacco, 1895 ; 61 spec., NHMW D 1610, Grund ( Austria) ; 17 spec., NHMW 1851/0002/0059, Grund ( Austria) ; 19 spec., NHMW 2022/0025/0001, Guntersdorf ( Austria) .

Non-Paratethyan material: Early Miocene: Bordeaux ( France); 4 spec., NHMW 1850/0018/0255, Bordeaux ( France) ; 2 spec., NHMW1856/0025/0337, Saucats ( France) ; 10 spec., NHMW1868/0045/0030, Genneteil ( France) ; Middle Miocene: 8 spec., NHMW 1847/0033/0301, Touraine ( France) , 8 spec., NHMW 1851/0017/1090, Touraine ( France) , 5 spec., NHMW 1852/0004/0545, Sainte-Maure de Touraine ( France) ; 2 spec., NHMW 1883/0000/6028, Manthelan ( France) ; 10 spec., NHMW 1861/0048/0682, 18 spec., NHMW 1854/0018/0099, Pontlevoy ( France) .

Revised description. Large, slender conical shell. Apical angle 13–15°. Protoconch and first teleoconch whorls not preserved. Teleoconch of up to 19 low, straight-sided whorls with indistinct suture. Early teleoconch whorls with two beaded spiral cords close to sutures. Third weaker spiral cord intercalated with weak beads. Central spiral cord strengthening abapically resulting in three prominent spiral cords of about equal strength with close-set, rounded beads, separated by narrow interspaces. Central cord may be slightly weaker throughout ontogeny in some specimens. Beads may be axially connected by weak ledges without forming distinct axial structures. Periphery of last whorl angulated passing into flat base with few, weakly beaded spiral cords. Aperture damaged in all available specimens; probably subquadratic (based on terminal preserved parts of last whorl); no varices. Columella straight with distinct central columellar fold. Inner lip moderately thickened, slightly expanding over base, adapically attached to base, abapically detached, forming narrow pseudumbilicus. Anal canal indistinct. Outer lip simple, not flaring, weakly opisthocyrt in lateral view (based on growth lines close to peristome). Siphonal canal short, narrow, twisted.

Discussion. There is some confusion concerning the status of Cerithium cinctum Bruguière, 1792 . This name was used for an Eocene species by Reid et al. (2008) and Esu & Girotti (2010), following the prevailing use in the literature (e.g., Lamarck 1804; Deshayes 1864; Cossmann & Peyrot 1911). The type locality of Cerithium cinctum is not given in Bruguière (1792) and Bruguière (1792: 494) stated that his species differs from a species from the Touraine. D’Orbigny (1852: 80) introduced Cerithium subcinctum for the Miocene species, referring to specimens from the Early Miocene of Dax and Bordeaux in France and the Early Miocene of Gauderndorf in ( Austria). Deshayes (1864: 179), however, pointed out that the specimen described by Bruguière (1792) was collected from grey marls at Montpellier ( France) and suggested that it is conspecific with Cerithium papaveraceus de Basterot, 1825 (see also Le Renard 1994: 37) (nevertheless, Deshayes 1864 continued to use Cerithium cinctum for Eocene specimens). Lozouet et al. (2001a) confirmed the origin from Montpellier and stated that it was collected along with Granulolabium plicatum (Bruguière, 1792) , which clearly excludes an Eocene age.

The Pliocene to Pleistocene Ptychopotamides tricinctus ( Brocchi, 1814) differs from P. cinctus in its less regular sculpture and the well separated whorls, due to the distinct suture (see Brunetti 2013 for figures and references).

Synonyms. Specimens from Egerian localities of the Central Paratethys were traditionally misidentified as Potamides lamarckii Brongniart, 1810 since Fuchs (1868). The Rupelian P. lamarckii , however, differs distinctly in its convex whorls and incised suture. Later, Gábor (1936) established Potamides (Ptychopotamides) pappi for a single specimen from the Egerian of Eger ( Hungary) based on its assumed small size. Báldi & Cságoly (1975) used Potamides lamarcki margaritaceus (as nomen nudum) for Hungarian specimens from Máriahalom. Specimens from Máriahalom in the NHMW collection, however, do not differ from typical P. cinctus from France. Vicián et al. (2019) identified an Egerian fragment from Hungary as Ptychopotamides conjunctoturris ( Sacco, 1895) , based on the more prominent adapical row of nodes. This specimen is indeed very similar to the species from the Rupelian of Italy [see syntype BS.046.12.045, Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino ( Italy), illustrated in Sacco (1895, pl. 3, fig. 25) and Ferro Mortara et al. (1984, pl. 36, fig. 2)]. The status of the Rupelian species from Italy will need revision and it might be based on an aberrant P. cinctus . Similarly, for the Hungarian specimen, we assume that it represents a rare morphotype of P. cinctus , which is also rarely seen in Middle Miocene material from Grund ( Austria).

Sacco (1895) proposed Potamides (Ptychopotamides) papaveraceus grundensis as name for Langhian specimens from Grund ( Austria), described by Ĥrnes (1855). Maybe, Sacco (1895) was misguided by the illustration in Ĥrnes (1855), which shows an aberrantly slender shell. A comparison of the rich collection from Grund with specimens of P. cinctus from the Early and Middle Miocene of France did not reveal any differences between both occurrences and P. grundensis is another subjective junior synonym of P. cinctus .

Distribution. Ptychopotamides cinctus appeared during the Chattian in the Proto-Mediterranean Sea and the Central Paratethys. Subsequently, it is recorded in the Central Paratethys from the Early Miocene and persisted into the early Badenian (Langhian). We are not aware of Eastern Paratethyan occurrences. Along the northeastern Atlantic coast, it was abundant until the Langhian. Last occurrences mentioned by Cossmann & Peyrot (1922) from the Serravallian of Orthez ( France) might need confirmation. Otherwise, it might represent a species, which vanished with the climate cooling at the Langhian/Serravallian boundary.

Central Paratethys. Egerian (late Oligocene/Early Miocene): Hungarian Paleogene Basin: Eger, Máriahalom ( Hungary) ( Báldi 1973); Esztergom Basin: Esztergom-Szentgyörgymező ( Hungary) ( Vicián et al. 2019); South Slovakian Basin: Štúrovo ( Slovakia) ( Ondrejíčková & Seneš 1965); Central Slovenia: Soteska ( Slovenia) ( Mikuž 2003). Eggenburgian: Nonndorf ( Austria) (hoc opus). Karpatian (Early Miocene): Korneuburg Basin: Grossrussbach, Karnabrunn, Kleinebersdorf, Niederkreuzstetten, Obergänserndorf, Ŗckersdorf, Stetten, Wetzleinsdorf ( Austria) (Harzhauser 2002). Badenian (Middle Miocene): Polish-Ukrainian Fore-Carpathian Basin: Kremenets' (Ternopil Region, Ukraine) ( Pusch 1836, 1837); North Alpine-Carpathian Foredeep: Grund, Guntersdorf, Immendorf, Kalladorf, Nodendorf, Windpassing, Wullersdorf ( Austria), Hrušovany nad Jevišovkou ( Czech Republic) ( Ĥrnes 1855); Pannonian Basin: Várpalota, Herend–Márkó, Mátraverebély ( Hungary) ( Csepreghy-Meznerics 1954; Strausz 1966; Katona et al. 2011).

Proto-Mediterranean. Late Rupelian—early Chattian (Oligocene): Kale-Tavas Basin: Sancaktepe ( Turkey) ( Ýslamoðlu 2008). Chattian: Southern Italy: Otranto ( Italy) ( Esu & Girotti 2010); Erzincan Basin: Erhami ( Turkey) ( Stchepinsky 1941); Munzur Mountains: Ovacýk ( Turkey) (Ģrsoy 2017), note that the locality was dated as Early Miocene by Ģrsey (2017) but the occurrence of Ampullinopsis crassatina (mididentified as Globularia carlei ) indiactes an Oligocene age).

Northeastern Atlantic. Aquitanian and Burdigalian (Early Miocene): Aquitaine Basin: Léognan, Mérignac, Saucats, Saint-Paul-lès-Dax ( France), Langhian (Middle Miocene): Aquitaine Basin: Manciet ( France), Serravallian: Aquitaine Basin: Orthez ( France) ( Cossmann & Peyrot 1922). Loire Basin: Langhian: Bossée, Le Louroux, Louans, Manthelan, Paulmy, Pontlevoy, Sainte-Maure de Touraine, Thenay ( France) (see Glibert 1949 for additional localities).

Genus Mesohalina Wittibschlager, 1983

Type species. Murex margaritaceus Brocchi, 1814 , original designation Wittibschlager (1983: 56). Possibly Rupelian, Mainz Basin.

The locality of the holotype was erroneously given as “crete senesi” by ( Brocchi 1814: 447), which is certainly incorrect (see Stefanini 1915; Kadolsky 1995; Esu & Girotti 2010). The specimen might derive from the Oligocene of the Mainz Basin ( Germany). An origin from the Early Miocene of the Eggenburg region in Austria, as discussed by Esu & Girotti (2010), would be surprising, because these Austrian localities were found and described distinctly later in the mid-19 th century and therefore, an earlier exchange with Italian institutions is unlikely (oldest collection labels are dated 1847). On the other hand, the similarity between the holotype and specimens from Nonndorf in Austria is indeed striking.

Original diagnosis. “ Gehäuse kegelf̂rmig. Umgänge gerade, meist ziemlich enggedrängt und ohne tiefe Suturen. Die Umgänge besitzen stets drei Hauptknotenreihen. Die oberste, dem Apex am nächsten Liegende, verstärkt sich im Laufe des Gehäusewachstums dermassen, dass sie allmählich die beiden darunterliegenden Reihen überragt. Die beiden darunterliegenden Knotenreihen verstärken sich während des Gehäusewachstums im gleichen Masse. Der Einschub von einer weiteren Knotenreihe zwischen die Hauptknotenreihen ist m̂glich. Die Form der Knoten schwankt zwischen quaderf̂rmig und seitlich erweiterten, dreieckigen Skulpturelementen. Mündung schräg, annähernd viereckig, oben mit schwachem Ausguss. Innenlippe kräftig, auf die Basis umgeschlagen. Basis mit Spiralreifen, die schwach beknotet sind. Die Spindel besitzt stets eine kräftige Spindelfalte, die ungefähr in der Mitte eines Umganges liegt.” [Shell conical. Whorls straight, usually rather crowded and without deep sutures. The whorls always have three main rows of nodes. The uppermost, closest to the apex, becomes stronger during growth so that it gradually overhangs the two rows below. The two rows of nodes below strengthen to the same extent during growth. The intercalation of further rows of nodes between the main rows of nodes is possible. The shape of the nodes varies between quadratic and laterally expanded, triangular sculptural elements. Aperture oblique, almost quadrangular, with weak posterior canal. Inner lip strong, expanding over base. Base with weakly beaded spiral cords. Columella always with strong fold, located approximately in the middle of a whorl.] ( Wittibschlager 1983: 56).

Stratigraphy and paleogeography. The genus was widespread during the Oligocene and Early Miocene in the entire Proto-Mediterranean Sea, the Mainz Basin, the Central Paratethys and north-eastern Atlantic ( Báldi 1973; Kadolsky 1995; Lozouet et al. 2001a; Esu & Girotti 2010; see Harzhauser et al. 2016 for a detailed overview). During the Rupelian, it spread even into the North Sea ( Marquet et al. 2008). Eastern Paratethyan occurrences from the middle Oligocene of Georgia ( Gamkrelidze et al. 1964) will need verification. The genus disappeared in the Paratethys Sea after the early Eggenburgian (early Burdigalian) around 20 Ma. Similarly, last records of Mesohalina in the Proto-Mediterranean Sea are documented from the Burdigalian ( Sacco 1895) and from the Burdigalian of the northeastern Atlantic ( Cossmann & Peyrot 1922). Younger records, such as Tympanotonos margaritaceus bearnensis Cossmann & Peyrot, 1922 from the Serravallian of Sallespisse ( France), represent Potamides (see holotype MNHN.F.J05902, https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/f/item/j05902?listIndex=4&listCo unt=229). Similarly, Tympanotonos redoniensis Van Dingenen, Ceulemans & Landau, 2016 , from the Pliocene of the Loire Basin ( France) is clearly unrelated with Mesohalina and might indeed be close to Tympanotonos ( Van Dingenen et al. 2016; see holotype MNHN.F.A57392, https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/f/item/a 57392?listIndex=8&listCount=229). No occurrences of Mesohalina are known from Oligocene and Early Miocene mudflat and mangrove associated faunas of the Indian Ocean (e.g., Vredenburg 1925; Harzhauser et al. 2017; Reuter et al. 2021).

Ecology. Mesohalina is abundant in deposits of lagoons and blackwater swamps and was also associated with mangroves. Báldi & Cságoly (1975) and Janssen (1984) documented large populations from the Egerian (Chattian/ Aquitanian) of Máriahalom ( Hungary) where Mesohalina co-occurred with a large Ellobium species, which is a mangrove dwelling genus ( Ellison et al. 1999). Rupelian populations in the Thrace Basin ( Turkey) were reported by Harzhauser et al. (2016) from an oligohaline mangrove swamp some distance from the sea. Occurrences in oligohaline lagoons are reported from the Chattian of Apulia ( Italy) ( Esu & Girotti 2010) and the Eggenburgian (Burdigalian) of the Horn Basin ( Austria) (own data M.H.).

Discussion. Mesohalina margaritacea was erroneously placed in the extant West African genus Tympanotonos Schumacher, 1817 by many authors (e.g., Sacco 1895; Harzhauser & Kowalke 2001, Lozouet et al. 2001 a, Harzhauser 2004). Wittibschlager (1993) based the separation of both genera on the non-homologously formed sculpture ( Wittibschlager 1983, Kadolsky 1995, Reid et al. 2008). In addition, the turreted protoconch of two strongly convex and smooth whorls of Mesohalina margaritacea differs very clearly from that of Tympanotonos fuscatus (Linnaeus, 1758) , which has a multispiral, conical protoconch with nearly flat periphery and indistinct sutures ( Bandel & Kowalke 1999) (see Harzhauser et al. 2016). We note, however, that protoconch morphology is not necessarily significant to separate genera.

Lozouet & Maestrati (2012) and Lozouet (2013) placed Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) and M. labyrinthica (Nyst, 1836) in Potamides , thus synonymizing both genera (see also Reid et al. 2008). We reject this view, because Mesohalina differs from Potamides in its broader conical spire and the development of a wide subquadratic aperture with flaring wing, wide and thickened inner lip, which expands over the base, and thickened outer lip. In Potamides , in contrast, the aperture is small, subcircular, with weak inner lip and weakly thickened outer lip. Moreover, Potamides lacks the distinct columellar fold of Mesohalina ( Wittibschlager 1983) .

Species-level taxa placed in Mesohalina reported from the Paratethys calcarata. Cerithium . Grateloup, 1846 → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) gratteloupi . Cerithium, d’Orbigny, 1852 → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) lemniscatum . Cerithium . auctores → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) margaritacea . Murex . Brocchi, 1814 → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) moniliformis. Cerithium . Grateloup, 1846 → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) nonndorfensis. Potamides . Sacco, 1895 → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814) quadricincta . Cerithium . Schaffer, 1912 → Terebralia sp.

submargaritaceus . Potamides . Braun in Walchner, 1851 → Mesohalina margaritacea ( Brocchi, 1814)