Dicharax ingrami (W.T. Blanford, 1862)

Fig. 50

Alycaeus ingrami W.T. Blanford, 1862: 135–136 .

Alycaeus ingrami var. nagaensis Godwin-Austen, 1871: 92, pl. 5 fig. 2. Syn. nov.

Alycaeus anonymus Godwin-Austen, 1914: 405–406, pl. 139 figs 1, 1a. Syn. nov.

Alycaeus ingrami – Sowerby 1877: pl. 6, species 54. — Godwin-Austen 1886: 193–194, pl. 44 figs 1, 1a–c; 1914: 421.

Alycaeus nagaensis – Godwin-Austen 1884: pl. 51 figs 3, 7; 1886: 195, pl. 44 figs 3, 3a–c; 1914: 396– 397, pl. 143 figs 2, 2a– b.

Alycaeus (Chamalycaeus) ingrami – Kobelt 1902: 357. — Gude 1921: 228–229.

Alycaeus (Chamalycaeus) nagaensis – Kobelt 1902: 359. — Gude 1921: 230.

Alycaeus anonymus – Gude 1921: 205.

Chamalycaeus (Chamalycaeus) nagaensis – Ramakrishna et al. 2010: 54.

Dicharax anonymus – Páll-Gergely et al. 2020: 53.

Dicharax (?) ingrami – Páll-Gergely et al. 2020: 90.

Dicharax (?) nagaensis – Páll-Gergely et al. 2020: 98.

Type material examined

MYANMAR • 7 shells, probable syntypes of A. ingrami (figured by Godwin-Austen 1886 and Fig. 50A– E); Tongoop, Arakan; Blanford coll.; NHMUK 1906.4.4.68 • 1 shell of A. ingrami; Arakan, “authentic”, “type var.”, 1944, No. 450; NHMUK • 2 syntypes of A. anonymus (Fig. 50K–O); Akouktoung, Pegu; NHMUK 1906.4.4.67a • 7 syntypes of A. nagaensis in 2 vials (Fig. 50F–J); Asalu, N. Cachar; NHMUK 1903.7.1.2615 .

Type localities

“prope Tongoop in Arakan ” ( A. ingrami); “Akouk-toung, Pegu: Type; also Thoudaung and Yenandoung, Pegu ” ( A. anonymus); “Neighbourhood of Asálú, rather local in its distribution, but abundant” ( A. nagaensis).

Differential diagnosis

Dicharax glaber has glossy initial whorls and R3, while those are regularly ribbed in D. ingrami (although the R3 is glossy in the type specimens of A. nagaensis). No other differences have been found between D. glaber and D. ingrami, and the difference regarding the R3 sculpture is rather minor, therefore, they may be considered synonyms. However, since we know of no specimens showing intermediate character states, we maintain both species as valid. See also under D. magnus .

Remarks

The type specimens of A. anonymus and A. ingrami are very similar, the only differences are that the former has a slightly keeled body whorl and a stronger sculpture. Nevertheless, these differences are considered intraspecific variability. Godwin-Austen (1914), when describing A. anonymus, did not compare it with any other species. The type specimens of A. nagaensis also do not differ from those of A. anonymus and A. ingrami except for their larger size, which is not sufficient for species level distinction. Therefore, both A. nagaensis and A. anonymus are junior synonyms of D. ingrami .