Dicharax gemmula (Benson, 1859)

Fig. 67

Alycaeus gemmula Benson, 1859: 179–180 .

Alycaeus (Charax) subhumilis Möllendorff, 1897a: 41 . Syn. nov.

Alycaeus gemmula – Sowerby 1877: pl. 5, species 37. — Godwin-Austen 1886: 190, pl. 48 figs 4, 4a–c.

Alycaeus (Dicharax) gemmula – Kobelt 1902: 370–371. — Gude 1921: 252–253.

Alycaeus (Dicharax) subhumilis – Kobelt 1902: 377. — Gude 1921: 271, pl. 1 figs 1–2.

Alycaeus (Charax) gemmula – Godwin-Austen 1914: 340.

Alycaeus (Charax) subhumilis – Godwin-Austen 1914: 344–345, pl. 133 figs 2–2c.

Chamalycaeus (Dicharax) subhumilis – Zilch 1957: 146, pl. 6 fig. 24. — Ramakrishna et al. 2010: 67.

Chamalycaeus (Dicharax) gemmula – Ramakrishna et al. 2010: 60.

Dicharax (?) gemmula – Páll-Gergely et al. 2020: 89.

Dicharax (?) subhumilis – Páll-Gergely et al. 2020: 105, fig. 25.

Diagnosis

This species is characterized by a tiny, glossy shell, smooth R2 and a single, sharp R3 swelling, R2+R3 only slightly longer than a quarter whorl.

Type material examined

INDIA • neotype (designated by Preece et al. 2022: Fig. 67A–E); Darjiling; Blanford coll.; NHMUK 1906.4.4.55 • lectotype of A. subhumilis (designated by Zilch 1957: Fig. 67F–I); Vorderindien: Darjiling; Möllendorff coll.; SMF 109224 • 1 paralectotype of A. subhumilis; same data as for preceding; SMF 109225 .

Type localities

“in valle Rungun” ( A. gemmula); “in montibus Darjiling Indiae” ( A. subhumilis).

Differential diagnosis

Dicharax lahupaensis is similar in general shell and aperture shape, but it has two R3 swellings, and its R2 has separate ribs (R3 surface is smooth in D. gemmula). See also under D. daflaensis .

Remarks

No notable differences were found between the types of A. gemmula and A. subhumilis, therefore the latter is a junior synonym of the former.