ARIOPHANTIDAE Godwin-Austen, 1888
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5252/geodiversitas2024v46a16 |
publication LSID |
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1D016A8E-8715-4D6C-B999-29F6F4947911 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EF5DBD3E-FF5B-CCF8-FCB8-16CEFD5EFCAB |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
ARIOPHANTIDAE Godwin-Austen, 1888 |
status |
|
Family ARIOPHANTIDAE Godwin-Austen, 1888 View in CoL
ammonia , Helix –Deshayes,1850-HistNatTerrFluv1: 197;1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 10, pl. 37A, fig. 1, ex Valenciennes ms. Uncaptioned pl. 37A issued in 1841. — Type locality: none given. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Ariophanta ammonia (Deshayes, 1850) (MolluscaBase) .
baudini, Helix – Deshayes, 1832-EncyMeth: 256. — Type locality: New Guinea. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Naninia , but nomen dubium ( Benthem Jutting 1964: 51) .
belangeri , Helix – Deshayes, 1832b: 413-414, 439, 522, pl. 1, figs 1-3; 1832-EncyMeth: 233-234; 1838-HistNatAnim2: 101- 102; 1843-HistNatAnim3: 304; 1850-HistNatTerrFluv1: 100; 1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 14, pl. 69-I, fig. 4. — Type locality: Pondichery, India; Bélanger. — Type age: Recent. — Type material: MNHN-IM-2000-25160, lectotype; MNHN-IM-2000-23017, 2 paraletotypes; MNHN-IM-2000-23018, paralectotype. — Current status: Ariophanta belangeri (Deshayes, 1832) ( Raheem et al. 2014: 88-89, figs 53F, 54A-C).
convoluta , Helix View in CoL –Deshayes, 1851-HistNatTerrFluv1: 401, 15, pl. 87, fig. 2. The header on p. 401 suggests that this species would belong on p. 190. — Type locality: Sumatra. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Macrochlamys convoluta (Deshayes, 1851) ( Benthem Jutting 1959: 148) , but nomen dubium .
davidi View in CoL , Vitrina View in CoL – Deshayes, 1876: 94-95, 99, pl. 1, figs 5-7. Peking, China. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Macrochlamys davidi (Deshayes, 1876) (MolluscaBase) View in CoL .
expolita, Helix – Deshayes, 1850-HistNatTerrFluv1: 190-191; 1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 15, pl. 87, fig. 1. — Type locality: none given [ Cambodia]. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: synonym of Sarika resplendens (Philippi, 1847) [ Helix ] (Tryon 1886: 91).
maillardi , Helix – Deshayes, 1863: 86, pl. 10, figs 12-14. — Type locality: La Réunion. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Dupontia maillardi (Deshayes, 1863) (MolluscaBase) .
moupiniana , Helix – Deshayes, 1870b: 23; 1874b: 13, as Helix maupiniana , pl. 2, figs 16-18. Moupin, Tibet. — Type age: Recent. — Type material: MNHN-IM-2000-34200, 4 syntypes. — Current status: Macrochlamys moupiniana (Deshayes, 1863) (MolluscaBase) .
problematicus , Limax – Deshayes, 1851-HistNatTerrFluv2(1): 963, ex Férussac ms;1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 3, pl. 8F, figs 13-17. Uncaptioned pl. 8F issued in 1839. — Type locality: none given. — Type age: Recent. — Type species (SD Humbert, 1863) of Parmarion P. Fischer, 1855 . Also type species (SD Schileyko, 2003) of the synonymous Rigasia H. Adams & A. Adams, 1858 . — Current status: Parmarion problematicus (Deshayes, 1851) (MolluscaBase) .
vitrinoides , Helix View in CoL – Deshayes,1831c:[1], pl.26;1832-EncyMeth: 225.— Type locality: none given [“ India ”, according to some authors].— Type age: Recent. — Type material: not found. — Type species (SD Baker, 1941) of Tanychlamys Benson, 1834 View in CoL (ICZN Code Art. 67.2.2). — Type species of Macrochlamys Benson, 1836 View in CoL (SD J. E. Gray, 1847) as well as type species (OD) of Orobia Martens, 1860 View in CoL . Macrochlamys View in CoL is the type genus of Macrochlamydinae Godwin-Austin, 1888 View in CoL , a subfamily of the Ariophantidae View in CoL .However, because this species name had been applied to three different Indian species, and has no type material or type locality, it is impossible if to know if it was even originally from India. Raheem et al. (2014: 152) argued that it is in the interest of stability to continue to regard Macrochlamys indica Benson View in CoL , in Godwin-Austin, 1883, as the type species of Macrochlamys View in CoL (and presumably of all three genera), representing a probably misidentified concept of Deshayes’ species (ICZN Code Art. 70.3). What was discussed and figured as Deshayes’ species in Schileyko (2004: 1322-1324, fig.1728) is one of the Indian species. Preece et al. (2022: 228, 248) outlined the complicated nomenclatural history of Macrochlamys View in CoL and Tanychlamys View in CoL and concluded that “From Deshayes’s description, Helix vitrinoides is unlikely to belong to the currently accepted concept of Macrochlamys sensu Godwin-Austen View in CoL ”. This species thus remains a nomen dubium , but a neotype to fix this species on Godwin-Austen’s concept would ensure nomenclatural stability.
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 |
ARIOPHANTIDAE Godwin-Austen, 1888
Coan, Eugene V., Pacaud, Jean-Michel & Kabat, Alan R. 2024 |
convoluta
Benthem Jutting 1959 |
Macrochlamys convoluta (Deshayes, 1851) (
Benthem Jutting 1959 |
Macrochlamydinae
Godwin-Austin 1888 |
Ariophantidae
Godwin-Austen 1888 |
Orobia
Martens 1860 |
Macrochlamys
Benson 1836 |
Macrochlamys
Benson 1836 |
Macrochlamys
Benson 1836 |
Macrochlamys
Benson 1836 |
Tanychlamys
Benson 1834 |
Tanychlamys
Benson 1834 |
vitrinoides
Deshayes 1831 |
Helix vitrinoides
Deshayes 1831 |
Vitrina
Draparnaud 1801 |
Helix
Linnaeus 1758 |
Helix
Linnaeus 1758 |