Solen (Ensisolen) tehuelchus Hanley, 1842
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4964.3.6 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5A0D449C-B9E7-46E8-B297-3572410D6407 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ED87C9-996E-FFE5-FF4C-FF67C9A31A12 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Solen (Ensisolen) tehuelchus Hanley, 1842 |
| status |
|
Solen (Ensisolen) tehuelchus Hanley, 1842 View in CoL
( Figures 2A–F View FIGURE 2 )
Solen thuelcha [sic] Hanley, 1842 (in 1842-1856): 13, pl. 2, fig. 3; 1843: pl. 10, fig. 30; 1856, Appendix: 336; Cosel, 1990: 300;
Coan & Kabat, 2012: 323. Solen tehuelcha “d’Orbigny ” Philippi, 1847: 44, pl. 2, fig. 4; Clessin, 1888: 8, pl. 2, fig. 3–5. Solen scalprum d’Orbigny, 1846: 505 , pl. 77, fig. 22 (non King, 1832). Solen tehuelchus Hanley View in CoL ― Mörch, 1861: 184; Carcelles, 1944: 292, pl. 13, fig. 106; Lange de Morretes, 1949: 46; Barattini,
1951: 255; Castellanos, 1970: 260; Rios, 1994: 267; 2009: 540; Scarabino, 2003: 245; Zelaya, 2016: 255. Solen thuelchus [sic] Hanley― Coan & Kabat, 2012: 323.
Type material: According to Coan & Kabat (2012) this material is lost. The type locality is given as “S. America”.
Other material examined: Uruguay: La Paloma , ( MACN 27591 View Materials , dry, 3 specimens) ; Montevideo ( MACN 635 View Materials , wet, 1 specimen) . Argentina: Buenos Aires: Punta Médanos ( MACN 16902 View Materials , dry, 12 specimens) ; Mar del Plata ( MACN 16684 View Materials , dry, 10 specimens; MACN 10230 View Materials , dry, 1 specimen) ; Puerto Quequén ( MACN 10689 View Materials , dry, 2 specimens; MACN 18231 View Materials , wet, 70 specimens) ; Necochea ( MACN 12017 View Materials , dry, 12 specimens; MLP 10242, dry, 2 specimens) ; Monte Hermoso ( MLP 3623 View Materials , dry, 1 specimens) ; Puerto Belgrano ( MACN 11163 View Materials , dry, 4 specimens) ; La Chiquita Beach, Villarino , Buenos Aires ( MACN 40443 View Materials , dry, 6 specimens) ; Río Colorado ( MLP 2068 View Materials , dry, 7 specimens; MLP 1364 View Materials , dry, 2 specimens) ; San Blas Bay ( MACN 20234 View Materials , wet, 3 specimens) ; El Cóndor, Río Negro ( MLP 4894-3 View Materials , dry, 3 specimens) .
Diagnosis: Shell quadrangular; anterior end slightly rounded, posterior end truncated; ratio length/height = 6:1 posterior adductor muscle oval; pallial sinus small.
Description: Shell, fragile, equivalve, inequilateral, cylindrical ( Fig. 2A–D View FIGURE 2 ); anterior end slightly rounded and posterior end sub-truncated ( Fig. 2A–B View FIGURE 2 ); shell length up to 88 mm (MACN 18231); umbo anteriorly placed; dorsal margin almost straight and ventral margin slightly convex ( Fig. 2A–B View FIGURE 2 ); outer surface smooth or presenting irregular growth lines; periostracum orange to yellowish ( Fig. 2A–B View FIGURE 2 ); inner surface white to purplish ( Fig. 2C–D View FIGURE 2 ).
Anterior adductor scar bigger than the posterior scar, lentiform, elongate, close to dorsal margin of the valve, joined to the pallial line ( Fig. 2C–D View FIGURE 2 ); posterior adductor scar oval, close to dorsal shell margin, joined to the postero-dorsal projection of the pallial line ( Fig. 2C–D View FIGURE 2 ); pallial line well marked, elongated, projected antero-ventrally, postero-ventrally and postero-dorsally ( Fig. 2C–D View FIGURE 2 ); retractor muscles scar between mantle line and anterior adductor, not visible as a separate muscle; pallial sinus shallow ( Fig. 2C–D View FIGURE 2 ); hinge plate with two cardinal teeth, one in each valve, triangular, lateral teeth absent ( Fig. 2E–F View FIGURE 2 ); ligament dorsal, opisthodetic ( Fig. 2E View FIGURE 2 ).
Distribution: Specimens studied herein are from La Paloma, Uruguay to El Cóndor, Río Negro, Argentina. However, this species has also been reported from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to the Gulf of San Matías in Argentina ( Guerra et al. 2011; Rios 1994, 2009).
Habitat: Coastal waters, burrowed in muddy sediments, usually protected from strong waves in the shallow sub-tidal zone from 5 to 10 m depth ( Huber 2010; Rios 2009; Scarabino et al. 2006).
Remarks: No junior synonyms of S. (E.) tehuelchus have been found in the literature. However, this species has been mentioned as Solen thuelchus , S. tehuelcha and S. tehuelchus by different authors ( Carcelles 1944; Castellanos 1970; Cosel 1990; Hanley 1842; Philippi 1847; Rios 1994; Saeedi 2016).
Hanley (1842) described Solen thuelcha from specimens collected by d’Orbigny in South America. The original spelling is correct. Article 32.5 of the code ( ICZN 1999) does not apply here. There is no clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist’s or printer’s error, without recourse to any external source of information. For this reason Coan & Kabat (2012) have recently considered Solen thuelchus as the valid name, with the mandatory change of gender (Art. 34.2) from “a” to “us” required because the gender of Solen is masculine ( Valentich-Scott et al. 2020). However, this species has been cited as Solen tehuelchus (with “e”) by several authors ( Barattini 1951; Carcelles 1944; Castellanos 1970; Lange de Morretes 1949; Rios 1994, 2009; Scarabino 2003; Stuardo 1969; Zelaya 2016).According to the article 33.3.1 of the code “ tehuelcha ” (with “e”) is a subsequent spelling in prevailing usage. Moreover, article 33.2.1 does not apply either and the name S. tehuelchus is an unjustified emendation. But the article 33.2.3.1 states when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation.
The nominal species Solen scalprus mentioned by d’Orbigny (1846) is a misidentification of King’s species (1832) and must be considered a synonym of Solen tehuelchus . The true Solen scalprus King, 1832 , is a small specimen of Ensis macha .
Comparisons: George Sowerby II (1874 in Reeve & Sowerby 1843-1878) considered S. gaudichaudi Chenu, 1843 , as a synonym of S. tehuelchus . However, this synonymy was rejected by Stuardo (1969), who considered both species as valid. The Chilean Solen gaudichaudi , gets larger than Solen tehuelchus , is less oblique and has more rounded anterior and posterior ends and a purple-reddish coloration of the shell. In addition, the tooth of the right valve in S. gaudichaudi is inserted on the top of a wide base and the socket next to it is wide and shallow whereas in S. tehuelchus the tooth is slightly displaced to the right and the socket is deep ( Stuardo 1969). No other species have been confounded with Solen (Ensisolen) tehuelchus in the literature.
Another solenoid species mentioned from the southwestern Atlantic is Solena obliqua ( Spengler, 1794) . This species was said to be distributed from the Caribbean Sea to Santa Catarina, Brazil ( Rios 1994, 2009). However, according to Huber (2010), the true Solena obliqua is restricted to the Caribbean whereas the Brazilian specimens would belong to an undescribed species distributed from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to La Paloma, Uruguay. The difference separating Solena from Solen are the placement of cardinal teeth a little behind the anterior margin of the valve and a length/height of 5: 1 in Solena ( Rios 2009) .
| MLP |
Museo de La Plata |
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.
