Sukashitrochus morleti (Crosse, 1880): Figure 17

Schismope morleti Crosse 1880: 144 –146, pl. 4, fig. 3.

Schismope morleti: Paetel 1888: 289 .

Schismope morleti: Pilsbry 1890: 62, pl. 22, figs. 37–39.

Schismope morleti: Thiele 1912: 29, pl. 3, figs. 27–28 [copy figures Crosse].

Schismope morleti: Fischer­Piette 1950: 152 .

Scissurella ? (Sukashitrochus) morleti: Lozouet 1986: 109 .

Scissurella (Sukashitrochus) sp.: Lozouet 1986: Fig. 29A.

Sinezona morleti: Geiger 2003: 78 .

Synonyms

+ Sukashitrochus indonesicus Bandel 1998: 51 –52, pl. 17, figs. 7–8, pl. 18, fig. 1. Type material. Holotype (SGPIH 3881), 1.7 mm. Type locality. Near Satonda, Indonesia [8.100°S, 117.750°E] (OD). Etymology. Named for its provenance from Indonesia (OD).

Sukashitrochus indonesicus: Geiger 2003: 79 .

Sukashitrochus indonesicus: Geiger & Jansen 2004b: 55 –58, figs. 28 [shell, radula], 32b [map].

Sukashitrochus indonesicus: Geiger 2004: text­fig. p. 6.

+ Sukashitrochus simplex Bandel 1998: 52 –53, pl. 18, figs. 2–4. Type material. Holotype (SGPIH 3882), 1.4 x 1 mm. Type locality. Near Satonda, Indonesia [8.100°S, 117.750°E] (OD). Etymology. Simplex, Latin for the simple shape of the shell (OD).

Sukashitrochus simplex: Geiger 2003: 79 .

Misidentifications

Sinezona carinata: Jansen 1999: 54, figs. 49–51 [is Suk. morleti].

Type material. Syntype (MNHN), 1.5 x 1.25 mm. Here designated as lectotype (see remarks).

Type locality. New Caledonia, intertidal sands (OD).

Etymology. Name after L. Morlet (OD).

Description and differential diagnosis. The species was recently treated by Geiger & Jansen (2004b) as Sukashitrochus indonesicus .

Remarks. Sukashitrochus simplex Bandel, 1998 was synonymized under Suk. indonesicus Bandel, 1998 by Geiger & Jansen (2004b), applying first reviser's principle. Bandel (1998) cited as sole difference the stronger basal keels in Suk. indonesicus as compared to Suk. simplex . The degree to which keels are developed varies considerably in Sukashitrochus, as seen in the most abundant material available for Suk. atkinsoni (Tenison Wood, 1976) from Australia. Shared similarities of the two species include reticulate sculpture on embryonic cap and fine axials on protoconch, protoconch varix connected to embryonic cap, apertural margin of protoconch sinusoidal, the slightly more than one whorl of teleoconch I, number of axials on teleoconch I, absence of spiral sculpture on teleoconch I, 1.33 teleoconch II whorls, density of sculpture on shoulder and base, position of first keel that is strongest, dipping of apertural roof just below first keel on base in mature specimens.

The syntype of Sukashitrochus morleti (Crosse, 1880) is conspecific with Bandel’s Suk. indonesicus; the shared similarities are protoconch with fine reticulate sculpture (visible in type of Suk. morleti), teleoconch I of approximately 1 whorl, overall sculpture of axials, spirals and keels. Bandel (1998) did not compare either of his species to Suk. morleti . Thiele (1912) noted the similarities with Suk. atkinsoni, however, the protoconch of Suk. atkinsoni shows strong flocculant sculpture, whereas Suk. morleti has fine axials.

The single specimen in MNHN is labeled as “ syntype ”, because Crosse did not designate a single specimen to be the name bearer. Fischer­Piette (1950: 152) used the term “ holotype ” inappropriately, and this use should not be construed as a lectotype designation (ICZN Art. 74.5). The specimen is here designated as the lectotype for the express purpose of taxon stabilization in case other non­conspecific syntypes should be located. There are currently no known paralectotypes.