Expocystis rustica ( Pfeiffer, 1852 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.2462.1.1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6413F378-FFD6-6A48-F28B-76FCFCC7FEA1 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Expocystis rustica ( Pfeiffer, 1852 ) |
status |
|
Expocystis rustica ( Pfeiffer, 1852) View in CoL
Figures 17P–R View FIGURE 17 , 18H View FIGURE 18 , 19J View FIGURE 19 , 20I View FIGURE 20 , 21J View FIGURE 21 , 22D View FIGURE 22 , 23C View FIGURE 23
Helix inconspicua Forbes, 1851: 379 [non Helix inconspicua C. B. Adams, 1849 ].
Helix rustica Pfeiffer, 1852: 112 [nom. nov. for Helix inconspicua Forbes, 1851 ].
Helix impexa Reeve, 1852 : pl. 130, sp. 795 [nom. nov. for Helix inconspicua Forbes, 1851 ].
Helix villaris Reeve, 1854 : pl. 195, sp. 1375.
Helix crotali Cox, 1864: 13 [nom. nov. for Helix inconspicua Forbes, 1851 ].
Helix (Xesta) rustica: Cox, 1868: 2 , pl. 9, figs 3, 3a.
Helix View in CoL (T halassia) rustica: Brazier, 1876b: 117–118 .
Helix View in CoL (T halassia) villaris: Brazier, 1876b: 118 .
Nanina (Macrochlamys) villaris: Pfeiffer & Clessin, 1881: 44 .
Nanina View in CoL (T halassia) rustica: Pfeiffer & Clessin, 1881: 46 .
Nanina View in CoL (T halassia) impexa: Pfeiffer & Clessin, 1881: 46 .
Charopa View in CoL (T halassia) rustica: Tryon, 1886: 212 , pl. 62, figs 44–45.
Nanina View in CoL (Subg. Xesta Sect. Macrochlamys View in CoL ) villaris: Tryon, 1886 : pl. 105, pl. 35, fig. 41.
Charopa View in CoL (T halassia) rustica: Cox, 1909: 8 .
Microcystis rustica: Hedley, 1912: 260 , pl. viii, fig. 42; Odhner, 1917: 77, figs 29, 30c, 33.
Expocystis rustica: Iredale, 1937c: 4 View in CoL ; Smith, 1992: 230.
Synonymy follows Iredale (1937c: 4) and Smith (1992: 230).
Material examined. Queensland, Australia: BMNH 1982243 ( H. villaris holotype) (one shell measured, photographed), Lizard Island ; AM C425540 (two specimens dissected, one radula examined), S of Cooktown , Mt. Cook National Park (15º30' S, 145º15' E), on ground, semi deciduous microphyll vine forest, 23 Oct. 1975, P.H. Colman GoogleMaps .
Description. External morphology: Shell ( Figures 19J View FIGURE 19 , 20L View FIGURE 20 , 21J View FIGURE 21 ) of about 5 whorls, very light pinkishbrown; shape and sculpture as for genus. Animal white. Mantle laps and lobes as for genus. Caudal horn large; caudal foss vertical slit in tail.
Mantle cavity and digestive system: As for genus.
Genital system ( Figures 18H View FIGURE 18 , 22D View FIGURE 22 , 23C View FIGURE 23 ): As for genus. Penis moderately long; epiphallus enters penis through simple pore; penis internally covered in irregular ridges, four longitudinal penis pilasters present. Epiphallus longer than penis. Spermatophore soft capsule with firm tail pipe open at one end, tail pipe long, sculptured with longitudinal rows of tiny teeth.
Radula ( Figure 17P–R View FIGURE 17 ): As for genus. Radular formula (30.14.1.14.30) × 100 rows.
Range and habitat. Expocystis rustica is found from Innisfail to Cape York Peninsula, N Queensland, on the mainland and also on many islands of the Great Barrier Reef. It is found in rainforest, microphyll vine forest and under trees on or behind beaches, in leaf litter, inside rotting logs and under stones.
Remarks. The synonymy of Helix inconspicua Forbes, 1851 , H. impexa Reeve, 1852 and H. crotali Cox, 1864 with Expocystis rustica was recognised by most early authors from Cox (1868) onwards. However, Cox (1868) incorrectly placed Pravonitor kreffti in synonymy with Helix villaris . Iredale (1937c) first recognised H. villaris as a synonym of Expocystis rustica and this was followed by Smith (1992) and Smith et al. (2002).
The anatomical details given here differ from those presented by Odhner (1917), who illustrated the penial complex. His figure and description indicate that the epiphallus is absent and that the flagellum and penis retractor muscle are both present at the junction of the penis and vas deferens. A dart sac is also described as being present. Some of these differences are, in part at least, due to misinterpretation. The structure referred to as the dart sac is actually the bursa copulatrix (see also remarks under Malandena suturalis below). It is possible that the structure referred to as the flagellum is actually the caecum, although this interpretation assumes that Odhner omitted the actual flagellum from the drawing.
The radula shown here also differs slightly from that figured by Odhner (1917), who shows his specimen as having unicuspid marginal teeth. However, in his written description of the radula, Odhner states that the secondary cusp of the marginal teeth is ‘rather reduced in size and rather remote from the tooth end’ ( Odhner 1917: 81), implying that there is a small secondary cusp present. A small secondary cusp was present in the radula examined in the current study.
It is possible that Odhner’s (1917) specimen was misidentified, but no shell was figured and Odhner’s material was not examined, so this cannot be confirmed.
AM |
Australian Museum |
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Expocystis rustica ( Pfeiffer, 1852 )
Hyman, Isabel T. & Ponder, Winston F. 2010 |
Expocystis rustica: Iredale, 1937c: 4
Smith, B. J. 1992: 230 |
Iredale, T. 1937: 4 |
Microcystis rustica:
Odhner, N. H. J. 1917: 77 |
Hedley, C. 1912: 260 |
Charopa
Cox, J. C. 1909: 8 |
Charopa
Tryon, G. W. 1886: 212 |
Nanina (Macrochlamys) villaris:
Pfeiffer, L. & Clessin, S. 1881: 44 |
Nanina
Pfeiffer, L. & Clessin, S. 1881: 46 |
Nanina
Pfeiffer, L. & Clessin, S. 1881: 46 |
Helix
Brazier, J. 1876: 118 |
Helix
Brazier, J. 1876: 118 |
Helix (Xesta) rustica:
Cox, J. C. 1868: 2 |
Helix crotali
Cox, J. C. 1864: 13 |
Helix rustica
Pfeiffer, L. 1852: 112 |
Helix inconspicua
Forbes, E. 1851: 379 |