Amphidromus atricallosus (Gould, 1843)

Sutcharit, Chirasak, Ablett, Jonathan, Tongkerd, Piyoros, Naggs, Fred & Panha, Somsak, 2015, Illustrated type catalogue of Amphidromus Albers, 1850 in the Natural History Museum, London, and descriptions of two new species, ZooKeys 492, pp. 49-105 : 54-55

publication ID

https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.492.8641

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:334F0DAA-1CD1-40F4-9B8C-A62E4A97A732

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/660C84AB-3F59-DF19-E590-0A828E424820

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Amphidromus atricallosus (Gould, 1843)
status

 

Taxon classification Animalia Stylommatophora Camaenidae

Amphidromus atricallosus (Gould, 1843) View in CoL

Bulimus atricallosus Gould, 1843: 140.

Bulimus atricallosus - Gould 1844: 457, pl. 24 fig. 3.

Type locality.

Tavoy, British Burma [Dawei, Tanintharyi Region, Myanmar].

Type material.

Lectotype (designated by Johnson 1964: 44), MCZ 169050, paralectotype NHMUK 20110203 (Figs 1B, 3M; H=54.1 mm, W=33.3 mm).

Remarks.

Gould (1844: 457) mentioned that two specimens were the basis for the species description, but did not explicitly designate a holotype. Johnson (1964: 44) stated that "figured holotype MCZ 169050", but this specimen does not match with the original figure, especially in the differing location of the dark varix ( Gould 1844: pl. 24, fig. 3). The holotype that Johnson specified seems to be inappropriate, and should be interpreted as a lectotype designation ( ICZN 1999: Art. 74.6) to stabilise the name. In addition, the "paratype FMNH 72403" mentioned in Sutcharit and Panha (2006b: 14) is misinterpreted. This specimen from the Laidlaw ex. Fulton collection from the type locality should be considered as a topotype.

The dextral specimen, from the H. Cuming collection and figured in Reeve (1848), has an original label stating “type” and the locality is congruent with the type locality (Fig. 1B). This supports that supposition that the specimen likely came from Gould’s type series and is, therefore, considered as the paralectotype. In addition, Johnson (1964: 88) recognized a sinistral specimen as "paratype MCZ 169051". However, if this sinistral specimen originated from the original type series, Gould would have most likely mentioned the sinistral specimen in the original description and is in the opionion of the authors unlikely to be type material.