Phasmoconus fuscocingulatus (Hörnes, 1851),
treatment provided by
|Phasmoconus fuscocingulatus (Hörnes, 1851)|
Figs 17 W, 17X, 29A1–A3, 29B1–B3, 29C1–C3, 29D1–D3, 29E1–E2, 29F1–F3
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn—Hoernes & Auinger 1879: 47 , pl. 1, figs 10–13.
Conus fuscocingulatus Bronn—Friedberg 1911: 54 , pl. 2, figs 17–18.
Conus (Lithoconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn, 1848 — Moisescu 1955a: 163, pl. 15, figs 1–4.
Conus (Lithoconus) friedbergi nomen nov.— Moisescu 1955a: 165, pl. 14, figs 5–6.
Conus fuscocingulatus Bronn. — Eremija 1959: 187, pl. 1, figs 7–7a.
Conus (Dendroconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn 1848 —Kojumdgieva in Kojumdgieva & Strachimirov 1960: 214, pl. 51, fig. 2.
Conus (Dendroconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn—Florei 1961: 689 , pl. 9, fig. 67.
? Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn, 1848 — Hinculov 1968: 149, pl. 37, figs 11–13 [non fig. 10].
Conus (Chelyconus) friedbergi Moisescu, 1955 — Hinculov 1968: 149, pl. 37, figs 14a –b.
Conus (Dendroconus) berghausi exfuscocingulatus (Sacco, 1893) — Hinculov 1968: 152, pl. 38, fig. 9 [non Conus exfuscocingulatus Sacco, 1893 ].
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn—Nicorici 1972: 70 , pl. 17, figs 5–6.
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn in Hörnes, 1856 — Nicorici & Sagatovici 1973: 176, pl. 27, figs 4–5.
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus M. Hoernes—Švagrovský 1982: 403 , pl. 5, fig. 3.
Conus fuscocingulatus Bronn—Ionesi & Nicorici 1994: 62 , pl. 5, figs 1–4.
? Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn—Tiţă 2007: 554 , fig. 6/c.
non Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn in Hörnes, 1856 — Strausz 1966: 459, pl. 68, figs 8–11. non Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn—Stancu et al. 1971: 126 , pl. 8, fig. 8.
non Conus fuscocingulatus Bronn—Csepreghy-Meznerics 1972: 34, pl. 17, fig. 20.
non Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Hörnes, 1856 — Švagrovský 1981: 152, pl. 48, fig. 10. non Dendroconus fuscocingulatus (Bronn in Hörnes, 1856) — Kovács & Vicián 2013: 66, figs 43–46.
Type material. Syntype NHMW 1846View Materials /0037/0055, Pötzleinsdorf ( Austria), illustrated in Hörnes (1851, pl. 1, fig. 5); middle Miocene , Badenian (Serravallian).
Studied material. Syntypes and 6 spec. NHMW 1861View Materials /0033/0001, Bujtur ( Romania), 7 spec . NHMW 1861View Materials / 0033/0002, Bujtur ( Romania) including specimen illustrated in Hoernes & Auinger (1879, pl. 1, figs 10–11), including syntypes of Conus ochreocingulatus Sacco, 1893 ; 32 spec . NHMW 1846View Materials /0037/0054a, Pötzleinsdorf ( Austria); 8 spec . NHMW A1608, Bujtur ( Romania), 41 spec . NHMW 1836View Materials /0012/0108, Bujtur ( Romania).
Illustrated material. Figs 29AView FIGURE 29 1View FIGURE 1 –A3: Bujtur (Romania), SL: 36.5 mm, MD: 18.2 mm, NHMW 1861View Materials /0033/ 0 0 0 1, Bujtur ( Romania) ; Figs 29View FIGURE 29 B1–B3: Bujtur (Romania), SL: 34.1 mm, MD: 17.5 mm, NHMW 1861View Materials /0033/0001, Bujtur ( Romania) ; Figs 29View FIGURE 29 C1–C3: Bujtur ( Romania), SL: 31.7 mm, MD: 18.7 mm, NHMW A1608 (poetzleinsdorfensis- morph); Figs 29View FIGURE 29 D1–D3, 17W: Bujtur ( Romania), SL: 34.4 mm, MD: 17.6 mm , NHMW 1861View Materials / 0033/0002, specimen in Hoernes & Auinger (1879, pl. 1, fig. 11); Figs 29View FIGURE 29 E1–E2: Bujtur ( Romania), SL: 30.8 mm, MD: 15.6 mm , NHMW 1836View Materials /0012/0108a; Figs 29View FIGURE 29 F1–F 3, 17X: Bujtur ( Romania), SL: 24.7 mm, MD: 14.7 mm , NHMW 1836/0012/0108b (poetzleinsdorfensis- morph).
Revised description. Moderately small to medium-sized shells; paucispiral protoconch; high conical initial spire; later spire low, with beaded keel just above suture; beads move towards suture within 3rd –5th spire whorls and fade out as indistinct swellings within 6th whorl. Later spire of variable height, usually elevated and slightly coeloconoid; spire whorl tops weakly convex, faintly striate (only visible in high magnification); impressed suture. Subsutural flexure variable, very shallow, weakly curved, moderately asymmetrical. Last spire whorl slightly broadening with indistinct shoulder. Last whorl moderately elongate, weakly ventricose, slightly constricted; aperture regularly widening towards long and reflected anterior canal. Fasciole swollen, long, twisted, often with weak axial threads; inner lip narrow, straight. Deep irregularly spaced spiral grooves with broad cords in lower third of last whorl. Colour pattern often preserved as brown lines and very prominent in UV light, consisting of about 12–15 rather regularly spaced, well defined, continuous spirals on last whorl (rarely discontinuous spirals occur), with broad interspaces; broadest interspace usually two spirals below shoulder. Spire with axially elongate flammulae and blotches especially on shoulder and last whorl; some specimens display a broad dark band on spire whorl tops (in UV) and a light spiral at suture.
Shell measurements and ratios. n = 14: largest specimen: SL: 39.7 mm, MD: 21.9 mm, mean SL: 34.4 mm (σ = 2.3), mean MD: 18.5 (σ = 1.6), spire angle: µ = 104.6° (σ = 11.2°), last whorl angle: µ = 35.2° (σ = 2.1°), LW: µ = 1.87 (σ = 0.14), RD: µ = 0.63 (σ = 0.04), PMD: µ = 0.89 (σ = 0.03), RSH: µ = 0.14 (σ = 0.02).
Discussion. The authorship is often attributed to Bronn, who used the name in his correspondence and listed it in Bronn (1848) as nomen nudum (considering it as junior synonym of Conus raristriatus Bellardi & Michelotti, 1840 ). Hörnes (1851) made the name available and based his description on specimens from numerous localities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, clearly mixing several different species. Consequently, the status of this species is highly confused. Hörnes (1851) illustrated specimens as Conus fuscocingulatus , which represent two different species. He illustrated a specimen from Mikulov ( Czech Republic) as figure 4 on plate 1 and a second one as variety from Pötzleinsdorf ( Austria) as figure 5. Later, Hoernes & Auinger (1879) separated the specimen from Mikulov as Conus moravicus and kept the “variety” of Hörnes (1851) in the synonymy of Conus fuscocingulatus . The confusion was completed by Hoernes & Auinger (1879) by illustrating additional specimens as C. fuscocingulatus , which represent at least three species. The specimens illustrated by Hoernes & Auinger as fig. 12 is a stout shell with very low spire and distinct shoulder; under UV light it displays an irregular pattern of densely spaced, spirally arranged dashes and differs completely from Phasmoconus fuscocingulatus [the illustration of the colour pattern in Hoernes & Auinger (1879) is incorrect]. It is most probably a Kalloconus moravicus ( Hoernes & Auinger, 1879) . Their fig. 13 is also a very stout shell with nearly flat spire. For this specimen Sacco (1893a) introduced Conus poetzleinsdorfensis as new name. Unfortunately, the specimens of Hörnes (1851, pl. 1, fig. 5) and Hoernes & Auinger (1879, pl. 1, fig. 10) are rather untypical for Phasmoconus fuscocingulatus due to the broad last whorl, whereas all other specimens are more slender. Consequently, Sacco (1893a) proposed Conus ochreocingulata as new name for the shells o Hoernes & Auinger (1879, pl. 1, figs 10–11), which are treated as typical P. fuscocingulatus herein. This confusion is reflected in a very broad range of morphologies and lumped species identified in Paratethyan literature as this species. A Principal Component Analysis of the available specimens did not allow any separation of the “ poetzleinsdorfensis ”-morphs from Phasmoconus fuscocingulatus (Fig. 12); moreover, both morphs co-occur at Pötzleinsdorf and Bujtur. Therefore, we treat Conus poetzleinsdorfensis Sacco, 1893 and Conus ochreocingulata Sacco, 1893 as subjective junior synonyms of P. fuscocingulatus .
Moisescu (1955) introduced Conus friedbergi for specimens from Bujtur (Romania), which do not differ from P. fuscocingulatus . In her discussion she referred to the specimen from Białogon (Poland) illustrated by Friedberg (1911, pl. 2, fig. 19) as Conus cf. avellana Lamarck. This specimen is lost and the illustration does not allow a clear identification. As Moisescu (1955) did not clearly state whether she considered the Polish or her Romanian specimen as type specimen, the status of Conus friedbergi remains vague. It is either a nomen dubium (or species inquirenda) or a subjective junior synonym of P. fuscocingulatus .
Paleoenvironment. Most probably shallow marine environments based on the co-occurring mollusc assemblage and the geological setting at the very margin of the Vienna Basin (Sieber 1954).
Distribution in Paratethys. Badenian (middle Miocene): widespread in all Paratethyan basins.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Phasmoconus fuscocingulatus (Hörnes, 1851)
|Harzhauser, Mathias & Landau, Bernard 2016|
|Atanackovic 1985: 181|
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Hörnes, 1856
|Kovacs 2013: 66|
|Svagrovsky 1981: 152|
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn in Hörnes, 1856
|Nicorici 1973: 176|
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus
|Hinculov 1968: 149|
Conus (Chelyconus) friedbergi
|Hinculov 1968: 149|
Conus (Dendroconus) berghausi exfuscocingulatus
|Hinculov 1968: 152|
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn in Hörnes, 1856
|Strausz 1966: 459|
Conus (Dendroconus) fuscocingulatus
|Kojumdgieva 1960: 214|
|Eremija 1959: 187|
Conus (Lithoconus) fuscocingulatus
|Moisescu 1955: 163|
Conus (Lithoconus) friedbergi
|Moisescu 1955: 165|
|Sacco 1893: 12|
|Sacco 1893: 12|
Conus (Chelyconus) fuscocingulatus Bronn—Hoernes & Auinger 1879 : 47
|Auinger 1879: 47|
Conus fuscocingulatus Bronn—Ionesi & Nicorici 1994 : 62
|Nicorici 1994: 62|