Galeodea, CRESCENTENSIS WEAVER AND PALMER, 1922 NOMEN INQUIRENDUM, Link, 1807

Squires, Richard L., 2022, Revision of Eocene warm-water cassid gastropods from coastal southwestern North America: implications for paleobiogeographic distribution and faunal-turnover, PaleoBios 36, pp. 1-22 : 14-15

GALEODEA ? CRESCENTENSIS WEAVER AND PALMER, 1922 NOMEN INQUIRENDUM

Galeodea tuberculata (Gabb) var. crescentensis Weaver and Palmer, 1922 . p. 37; pl. 11, figs. 18, 20.

Galeodea crescentensis ( Weaver and Palmer, 1922) . Tegland, 1931. p. 409, pl. 59, figs. 2, 3. Weaver, 1942. p. 403, pl. 78, figs. 4, 5. Durham, 1942. p. 186.

Cassis (Coalingodea) crescentensis (Weaver and Palm- er). Abbott, 1968. p. 60.

? Galeodea crescentensis ( Weaver and Palmer, 1922) . Schenck, 1926. p. 85, pl. 15, fig. 8.

Primary Type Material— Holotype CASG 7612 -A, Crescent Formation, in sea cliff on west shore of Crescent Bay , Clallam County, Olympic Peninsula , Washington.

Remarks— This species is based on only its holotype, a specimen whose height is 16 mm. Tegland (1931) mentioned that the holotype has a close resemblance to a cassid from lower Oligocene deposits in Townsend Bay, Washington. Durham (1942: p. 186) commented that the holotype resembles G. tuberculiformis , but the meager material available for crescentensis prevents accurate taxonomic assignment of Weaver and Palmer’s gastropod. A partially crushed questionable specimen of G. crescentensis (hypotype UCMP 31310), which was illustrated by Schenck (1926: p. 85, pl. 15, fig. 8) from the Crescent Formation in Washington, is morphologically very different in shape and sculpture from any other Eocene CSWNA cassid and also different from the holotype of G. crescentensis illustrated by Weaver and Palmer, 1922 from the same formation. This questionable specimen, which is missing some of its shell, might not even be a cassid.

“ STRAMONITA ” PETROSA CONRAD, 1855 , NOMEN DUBIUM

Stramonita petrosa Conrad, 1855 . p. 17; 1857. p. 327; pl. 6, figs. 47, 47a.

Remarks— This species has been the source of con- siderable taxonomic confusion. Its two known specimens were found in a float boulder several kilometers from its supposed source, which was assumed to the Tejon Formation in the Grapevine Canyon area, Kern County, southern California. The specimens are very poorly preserved, and their smudged sketches are very inadequate. The curatorial details and whereabouts of these specimens are unknown. The anterior canal of this gastropod is not twisted, therefore it is not a cassid. It is also not the muricid Stramonita Schumacher, 1817 , but it might be a ficid. Based on the insufficient knowledge about Stramonita petrosa , Conrad’s (1855) gastropod is regarded herein as a nomen dubium.

On the basis of the above-mentioned two incomplete shells, Anderson and Hanna (1924: p. 108, pl. 10, figs. 2, 3 = hypotypes CASG 823 and 824) reported Galeodea petrosa ( Conrad, 1855) from Locality CASG 245 in the Tejon Formation, Grapevine Canyon, Kern County, southern California. These two specimens show no diagnostic morphologic characters, which would allow identification as to family, genus, or species.

Conrad’s use of the name “ petrosa ” has been confused with Dolium petrosum Conrad (1849) , a Miocene cassid species from the Astoria Formation in OreGon. See Moore (1963) for illustrations and synonymy of this Miocene species, now referred to as Liracassis petrosa ( Conrad, 1849) .

“ GALEODEA ” SCHENCKI WEAVER AND KLEINPELL, 1963 NOMEN

DUBIUM

Galeodea schencki Weaver and Kleinpell, 1963 . p. 189; pl. 25, figs. 15, 16.

Primary Type Material— Holotype CASG 70173 and paratype CASG 70174 are both from undifferentiated Sacate-Gaviota strata, Santa Barbara County, southern

California.

Remarks— The holotype is essentially an internal cast. The paratype does not look like a cassid and might be a cymatiid, based on the shell’s high spire, numerous spiral ribs, and narrow and sculptured terminal varix. The paratype is missing also its anterior end, and its aperture is not known. Both parts are needed for proper identification. This gastropod is regarded herein as a nomen dubium.

Weaver and Kleinpell (1963: p. 190, pl. 25, fig. 10) reported also a questionable Echinophoria dalli ( Dickerson, 1917) from the undifferentiated Gaviota Formation [“Tejon Stage”] in Santa Barbara County, southern California. Their report is based, however, on a poorly preserved single specimen whose anterior canal is missing, thus detailed identification is not possible.

“ GALEODEA ” SP. BREMNER, 1932 Galeodea sp. Bremner, 1932. p. 17; pl. 2, fig. 9.

Remarks— Bremner (1932) reported this gastropod (hypotype CASG 5527) from upper Paleocene (Thanetian) beds in Pozo Canyon, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, southern California. This specimen is poorly preserved, and its anterior end is missing. This specimen might be a ficid gastropod.