Tofanellidae Bandel, 1995
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.4202/app.2012.0052 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/99201644-FFBC-3A58-FF6A-FD4CFF16F876 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Tofanellidae Bandel, 1995 |
| status |
|
Family Tofanellidae Bandel, 1995
Remarks.—The Tofanellidae are characterized by coaxial protoconchs with a morphology that is considered to be diagnostic for the family ( Bandel 2005: 19): “Its embryonic whorl is left coiled and immersed in the apex of the larval shell. The rounded whorls of the larval shell gradually change from left coiling to plane coiling and finally to dextral coiling.” However, even some Mathildidae have coaxial protoconchs (e.g., Erratothilda ). It seems that the differentiation between Mathildidae and Tofanellidae is unclear in such cases. For instance, why is the protoconch of Mathilda bolina von Münster, 1841 sensu Bandel (1995 : pl. 2: 2) of the mathildid type whereas that in pl. 11: 8 ( Tofanella cancellata Bandel, 1995 ) allegedly tofanellid (see Fig. 8A, B View Fig )? And is Tricarilda octoangulata Gründel, 2006 then really a species of the Mathildidae or does it belong to Tofanella ? Obviously these cases need further clarification.
The representatives of the Tofanellidae are generally small and have been overlooked in many studies. It seems to be likely that only a small part of the gone species diversity and distribution have been assessed. So far, the family has not been reported from the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. However, Bandel (2005) reported Recent representatives of the family. At least some tofanellid genera seem to be long ranging although all range dates most be treated with caution. Gründel (1998) subdivided the family Tofanellidae into the two subfamilies Tofanellinae Bandel, 1995 and Usedomellinae Gründel, 1998. Kaim (2004) refuted this subdivision and even Bandel (2005: 19) was sceptical: “Gründel (1998) suggested to split the taxon into the subfamilies Tofanellinae and Usedomellinae, but the genera held herein contain species which are sometimes very difficult to place in one genus or the other or to a representative of one subfamily or the other. These subfamilies may, therefore, not be very useful.” Despite this statement, Bandel (2005) continued to use both taxa in his paper. However, it is indeed difficult to apply Gründel’s (1998) concept in some cases (e.g., Camponaxis ). Therefore we are reluctant to propose a subdivision of Tofanellidae into subfamilies and further studies of more fossil representatives are needed.
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.