identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03C387C0B334FFC4FD66FD5A025EFB5F.text	03C387C0B334FFC4FD66FD5A025EFB5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma Bellardi 1847	<div><p>Genus Raphitoma Bellardi, 1847</p><p>Type species - Raphitoma histrix Bellardi, 1847 (S.D. Monterosato 1872); Mediterranean Pliocene fossil. (See below and discussion in van Aartsen et al. 1984:88).</p><p>Cordieria Monterosato, 1884, non Roualt, 1848.</p><p>Cirillia Monterosato, 1884, non Rondani, 1856. Cenodagreutes E.H. Smith, 1967 .</p><p>Leufroyia Monterosato, 1884 .</p><p>Lineotoma Nordsieck, 1977, nomen novum pro Cirillia Monterosato, 1884, non Rondani, 1856.</p><p>Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 .</p><p>Members of Raphitoma are distinguished from other genera in the family by having a small to medium sized, elongated, turreted shell with uniformly convex whorls. Pronounced reticulate sculpture of strong axial ribs and strong spiral cords. A characteristic multispiral, cancellated, ‘raphitomine’ protoconch of 3 to 4 whorls (or similar species with paucispiral protoconchs).</p><p>Remarks. Northeast Atlantic species of this group have been shuttled between a host of different ‘genera’ during the last two centuries. Pleurotoma, Mangelia, Defrancia, Clathurella, Raphitoma have, at various times since the 1820ies been used for members of the group. Raphitoma was used in a wide sense by Bellardi (1847), but this usage was apparently not adopted by any of his contemporaries. Marshall (1912) settled for Clathurella, as Defrancia, preferred by Jeffreys (1867) was preoccupied. Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 (introduced by Monterosato in 1884 as a section within his new, but preoccupied, genus Cordieria) was adopted by Thiele (1929) as the most comprehensive genus-name for these species, with four subgenera and a number of sections. Raphitoma was regarded as a synonym of Mangelia Risso, 1826 by Thiele. (Curiously G.O. Sars 1878 had ‘reintroduced’ Raphitoma as a name for Teretia spp). Powell (1966) interpreted Philbertia more or less in the same way as Thiele. He used Raphitoma, for only two species, the Fossil Pleurotoma hystrix de Cristofori &amp; Jan, 1832 (cited as type species) and the Recent Clathurella pseudohystrix Sykes, 1906 . Powell compared Raphitoma with the Indo-Pacific Veprecula Melvill, 1917 whose teleoconch sculpture is similar but with a different (non-raphitomine) protoconch sculpture. Powell did not directly compare his two Raphitoma species with the numerous North East Atlantic and Mediterranean species he included in Philbertia .</p><p>Based on the authority of Thiele and Powell, Philbertia has been universally accepted as the common name for all European species of Raphitoma sensu Bouchet &amp; Gofas 2015, until van Aartsen et al. (1984) decided that species with a planktotrophic protoconch needed a separate name. As Pleurotoma philberti (Michaud, 1829), the type species of Philbertia has a paucispiral protoconch, species with a multispiral protoconch should in their opinion be renamed. Van Aartsen et al. (1984) thus resurrected Raphitoma with Raphitoma histrix Bellardi, 1847, as type species.</p><p>Bouchet (1990) presented convincing arguments against placing species with planktotrophic protoconchs in different genera from similar-looking species with paucispiral protoconchs. This opinion has won almost universal approval (e.g. Oliverio 1996, Rolán et al. 1998, Pusateri et al. 2012). The reasoning used by van Aartsen et al. (1984) for introducing Raphitoma as a substitute for Philbertia for the species with a multispiral protoconch is thus unnecessary. However, as Raphitoma has priority it was reintroduced as the common name for this group, almost by default (it was not mentioned in Bouchet 1990).</p><p>The type species, Raphitoma histrix is a Mediterranean Pliocene fossil, originally known by a nomen nudum: Pleurotoma hystrix de Cristofori &amp; Jan, 1832 which was the name used for the type species by Monterosato (1872). Van Aartsen et al. (1984:89) point out that this nomen nudum was validated, in a slightly different spelling, as Raphitoma histrix, by Bellardi (1847:85). However, the correct identification of R. histrix has proved to be difficult, as the several specimens figured under this name apparently represent a number of different species. The specimen figured as Raphitoma histrix by Bellardi (1847) must be considered lost (van Aartsen et al. 1984). Van Aartsen et al. proposed to accept a specimen of Pleurotoma hystrix De Cristofori &amp; Jan, 1832, photographed by Pinna (1971) and later by Pinna &amp; Spezia (1978) as a ‘syntype’, as lectotype for the species. This solution to the problem is based on a number of unprovable assumptions, and will have to be discussed in a wider context by Mediterranean authors. Probably the matter is best served by designating a neotype.</p><p>Species descriptions</p><p>Below follows a description of each of the species found in inshore Norwegian waters. One species, R. cf. echinata is</p><p>included in the key and illustrated, but not treated in detail, as it is not yet verified from the region defined as ‘Norwegian’ in this work (see Material and Methods above.).</p><p>Key to Norwegian members of Raphitoma .</p><p>1a. Protoconch with four whorls, microsculpture small granules or pustules or smooth ...................................... 2</p><p>2a. Microsculpture of isolated small pustules ............... 3</p><p>3a. Shell with white ground colour and purplish spiral cords. Narrow shells ..................... R. aequalis</p><p>3b. Shell completely white (or colourless). Wide shells .................................................... R. obesa n.sp.</p><p>2b. Microsculpture of small granules more or less merging together ............................................. R. linearis</p><p>2c. Shell surface smooth and glossy, macrosculpture ‘spiky’ ....................................................... R. cf. echinata</p><p>1b. Protoconch with max. 3.5 whorls, microsculpture different .......................................................................... 4</p><p>4a. Apex wide, axial ribs if present, wavy, fading away near aperture ........................................ R. concinna</p><p>4b. Axial ribs strong and regular, detectable on siphonal canal ................................................................. 5</p><p>5a. Shell with elongated siphonal canal ....................... R. maculosa n.sp.</p><p>5b. Solid shells with thickened outer lip with internal teeth .......................................... R. purpurea</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B334FFC4FD66FD5A025EFB5F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B333FFC7FD78FB5A0655FC7F.text	03C387C0B333FFC7FD78FB5A0655FC7F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma maculosa Høisaeter 2016	<div><p>Raphitoma maculosa n.sp.</p><p>Figures 1C, 2E, 3C and 4 - 6</p><p>h t t p: / / z o o b a n k.o r g / 1 A 0 C 5 3 8 2 -5 B C 7 - 4 E D E -8 8 0 6 - 99054F8A5071</p><p>Murex reticulatus Renier, 1804 (Suppressed by ICZN) Defrancia reticulata, Renier - Jeffreys 1867; Friele 1874 Clathurella reticulata, Ren. - G.O. Sars 1878</p><p>Clathurella reticulata, Brocc. - Marshall 1912</p><p>Raphitoma echinata - sensuSmith &amp; Heppell 1991; Heppell et al. 1997; Høisaeter 2009, non Brocchi, 1814.</p><p>Raphitoma asperrima (Brown, 1827) - Fretter &amp; Graham 1985 [in part]; Graham 1988 [in part];</p><p>Philbertia asperrima (Brown, 1827) - Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976 [in part]; Høisaeter 1986</p><p>Type material. Holotype ZMBN 107134.</p><p>Type locality. Liholmsrennen, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=5.15&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=60.3" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 5.15/lat 60.3)">Raunefjorden</a>, Hordaland county, 60°18’N, 05°09’E; 70–90 m.</p><p>Etymology. From Latin macula, spot, stain, mark. Referring to the white spots sprinkled all over the head-foot complex.</p><p>Material examined. One specimen (holotype) (70-90 m) and one shell (120-100 m) from Raunefjorden, western Norway, and one specimen (70 m) and one shell (80-60 m) from northern Norway. A shell from Bergen (ZMBN 16639) and one from Jondal, Hardanger, 50-120 m (ZMBN 15527) .</p><p>Description. (Based mainly on the holotype, the specimen studied alive, from Liholmsrennen, Raunefjorden, Figures 4 and 5). Max size 10.8 mm (Figure 6A). Shell fairly thick and opaque; height 2.27 to 2.47 times the diameter; apical angle 48°. Body whorl 65–69 % of total shell height. Shell colour, judging from the specimen in Figure 5 (photographed alive), with ground colour light yellowish white, with most spiral cords reddish brown on the nodules, much lighter brown on the cords between ribs. Spiral cords no. 5 and 6 from the top on the body whorl much lighter coloured than the rest. The shell has a more ‘spotted’ appearance than the other species in the genus. Protoconch (Figures 3C and 4) with 3 to 3 ½ whorls, with a coarse decussate grid and ending in a weak spiral keel. Protoconch W/L: 0.96. Protoconch colour milk chocolate brown. The 7.2 mm long specimen has four and a half teleoconch, convex whorls, with a deep and distinct suture. Sculpture consisting of numerous, slightly prosocline axial ribs crossed by spiral cords. Five or six narrow cords on penultimate whorl. The narrow axial ribs create, together with the strong spiral cords, a pattern of deep trapezoid pits wider than high (Figure 1C). Aperture narrow with a long and narrow siphonal canal, with eight spiral cords below ‘bend’ in siphonal canal (counted on dorsal side of the shell). Microsculpture not very distinct but apparently somewhat diffuse, small irregular oblong granules (Figure 4).</p><p>Foot with numerous bright white spots on a more diffuse gray-white background (Figure 5). The siphon extends a long distance in front of the siphonal canal, and appears somewhat bulb-shaped in front with 30 to 40 opaque white spots on the slightly grayish background.</p><p>Variability. The variability of the sculpture is well illustrated in Figure 6B and C, depicting two shells from northern Norway. The empty shell from Andfjorden (Figure 6B) has a more coarse sculpture with fewer axial ribs and fewer and stronger spiral cords than the specimen from Hjartøy just west of Bodø (Figure 6C). The available material (five shells, of which three are rather worn) does not permit a more detailed description of the shell variability.</p><p>Distribution. In Norway reported (as R. reticulata) as rare from narrow inlets in the archipelago north of Bergen (around 60°35’N) (Friele 1874). Not found by Norman (1879). In my large material of shells of Raphitoma s.l. from most of the Norwegian coast, only two specimens and two shells may reasonably be referred to this species. It is thus presumably distributed from Hardangerfjorden south of Bergen to Andfjorden (69°17’N, 60-80 m; only empty shell found). The specimen from Hjartøy in Nordland (67°18’N, 60 m) indicates that it is still (1976) present in northern Norway. The distribution outside Norway is unknown because of possible confusion with R. cf. echinata (see below).</p><p>Remarks. This species was called Raphitoma echinata (Brocchi, 1814) in Høisaeter (2009), based on the assumption that it was conspecific with the species given this name in several fairly recent check-lists from the British Isles (e.g. Smith &amp; Heppell 1991, Heppell et al. 1997). The species is called Raphitoma asperrima (Brown, 1827) in other North European identification guides (Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976, Fretter &amp; Graham 1985, Graham 1988). The name ‘ asperrima’ was first used for a ‘variety’ of R. purpurea (Montagu, 1803) by Forbes &amp; Hanley (1853), but according to Jeffreys (1867:318), the type of Brown’s Fusus asperrimus was a shell of Trophonopsis muricatus (Montagu, 1803) . This synonymy I find reasonable, based on the drawing in Brown (1827). This synonymy is also accepted in WoRMS (Gofas 2015a).</p><p>The name R. echinata (Brocchi, 1814) for a British species was introduced indirectly by Jeffreys (1867), as he picked the oldest ( Murex reticulatus) of several names for a complex of Mediterranean shells that he regarded as synonyms (“It is… M. echinatus of Brocchi, Pleurotoma Cordieri of Payraudeau, P. rude of Scacchi =[ Raphitoma pupoides (Monterosato, 1884)]”). Murex reticulatus Renieri, 1804, was suppressed by ICZN (Opinion 316 Dec. 17, 1954) and Murex echinatus Brocchi, 1814, based on a fossil, was (on the authority of Brocchi 1814 and Monterosato 1884) introduced as a subjective synonym of the unavailable M. reticulatus . Whether the Mediterranean R. echinata is really conspecific with the British species discussed by Jeffreys, is impossible to verify until the Mediterranean species complex to which R. echinata belongs is properly revised.</p><p>Jeffreys had, however, described the British species already in 1847 under the name Pleurotoma scabrum (“I described the present species ( D. reticulata Renier) as P. scabrum under the impression that it was distinct from the Mediterranean shell and not merely a variety”). A photograph of a syntype of this species is presented in Warén (1980, Pl. 6, Fig. 12). Unfortunately this photograph is too small to reveal any details of the sculpture of the shell. One important detail visible is the short siphonal canal, shorter than in my specimens of R. maculosa . Combined with the description in Jeffreys (1847) and the more detailed one (for D. reticulata) in Jeffreys (1867) it is anyway possible to compare the British species with my Norwegian specimens. In 1847, Jeffreys compared his P. scabrum with R. linearis: “It differs from Pl. lineare in the volutions being more tapering, and generally in its more slender form, and in the ribs and transverse striae being sharper and more elevated, giving the shell a scabrous appearance.” Although it cannot be completely excluded that Jeffreys’ P. scabrum is conspecific with R. maculosa n.sp., the fact that scabrum has not been used since Jeffreys listed it as a synonym of R. reticulata in 1867, argues for rejecting the name as a nomen oblitum according to the rules in ICZN.</p><p>A complicating factor is the presence in British waters of another species belonging to the same species complex, but never having been formally accepted as a separate species. This species is represented in my material by a single 11.1 mm long shell from 138 m, near Gullfaks oil field 61°05’N, on the western slope of the Norwegian Trench (Figure 7). Its main difference from R. maculosa, in addition to the very spiky ‘nodules’ is the smooth, almost satiny surface between the spiral cords, only interrupted by lines of growth. A similar looking shell from Shetland is illustrated in Fretter &amp; Graham (1985) under the name R. asperrima (Brown) . I suspect, based on the drawing in combination with their detailed description that Fretter &amp; Graham actually used both specimens of R. maculosa n.sp. and the species illustrated in Figure 7 as basis for their R. asperrima . As Fusus asperrima Brown is accepted as a synonym of Trophonopsis muricatus (see above), the shell shown in Figure 7, needs another name. It might be a British form of R. echinata, but as this subgroup of Mediterranean Raphitoma [ R. echinata, R. cordieri and R. horrida (Monterosato, 1884)] are yet to be properly revised, and their shell surface judging from available illustrations on the internet, is more porcellaneous than satiny, it might be better to choose a name based on British material. R. formosa (Jeffreys, 1867) is a candidate, but I feel it prudent to rather emphasize its similarity to one of several recent species of the Mediterranean R. echinata group (e.g. Gofas et al. 2011) as R. cf. echinata .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B333FFC7FD78FB5A0655FC7F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B330FFCAFFFEFC7A04E0FF5F.text	03C387C0B330FFCAFFFEFC7A04E0FF5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma aequalis (Jeffreys 1867)	<div><p>Raphitoma aequalis (Jeffreys, 1867)</p><p>Figures 2B, C, 3B and 8 - 11</p><p>Defrancia linearis var. aequalis Jeffreys, 1867:369 Cordieria (Cirillia) aequalis, Jeffr. - Monterosato 1884 Clathurella aequalis, de MONTEROSATO - Locard 1892 Mangelia linearis var. intermedia Forbes &amp; Hanley, 1853:472</p><p>Clathurella linearis var. intermedia F. and H. - Marshall 1912</p><p>Pleurotoma (Pleurotomoides) aequalis (Jeffreys) Monterosato - Dautzenberg &amp; Fischer 1925 Cenodagreutes aethus E.H. Smith, 1967a:1</p><p>Philbertia linearis aequalis (Jeffreys) - Rodriguez Babio &amp; Thiriot-Quiévreux 1974</p><p>Raphitoma aequalis (Jeffreys, 1867) - Sabelli et al. 1990; Cachia et al. 2001; Høisaeter 2009</p><p>Defrancia linearis (Montagu, 1803) [in part] - Friele 1874 Clathurella linearis - G.O. Sars 1878</p><p>Philbertia linearis (Montagu, 1803) [in part] - Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976; Høisaeter 1986</p><p>Raphitoma linearis (Montagu, 1803) [in part] - van Aartsen et al. 1984 (?); Fretter &amp; Graham 1985; Graham 1988; Smith &amp; Heppell 1991; Olsen 1994 (?); Heppell et al. 1997</p><p>Type material. Types could not be found (Warén 1980).</p><p>Holotype and one paratype of Cenodagreutes aethus E.H. Smith, 1967, in California Academy of Sciences, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Type number 320 (holotype) and 321, see Figure 10 below.</p><p>Type locality. Great Britain. Type locality for Cenodagreutes aethus E.H. Smith, 1967, off Farland Point, Isle of Cumbrae, Firth of Clyde , Scotland (55°44’N, 04°57’W) on a bottom of stones and mud in 20 m.</p><p>Material examined. Around 245 specimens from 85 stations between 58° and 69°N on the coast of Norway .</p><p>Description. (Based mainly on specimens illustrated in Figures 8 and 11A). The size of the specimen in Figure 8, 10.1 mm, is the maximum recorded for the species. Shell moderately narrow (height rarely more than 2.25 times the diameter). Body whorl 53 to 70 % of total shell height. Shell subfusiform with convex whorls and with deeply incised sutures. Sculpture of moderately pronounced axial ribs (costae) crossed by narrow spiral cords, six cords on penultimate whorl. The space between spiral cords two to three times wider than the spiral cords. Where the cords cross the ribs, rather low, smooth and glossy tubercles are produced. Axial ribs disappear gradually towards the base. Yellowish white to golden yellow ground colour with reddish brown spiral cords. On penultimate whorl, the sixth (or seventh) spiral cord from top often white or much lighter than remaining cords. Every second or third rib pure white in some specimens. In specimens from deeper water, ground colour usually almost white and spiral cords with much less pigment than in those from shallower water (Figures 11F and H). Aperture an elongated oval drawn out into a siphonal canal of varying length, longer in juveniles than in adults, but never as long as in equally long R. maculosa n.sp. Shallow anal sinus in outer lip near suture. Spiral cords on the siphonal canal smooth, wider and closer together than on the whorls above the aperture. Teleoconch microsculpture of fine, well separated microscopic pustules (Figures 2B, C and 8), best visible between spiral cords in upper parts or in juvenile shells. Protoconch of 3.5 to 4 (varies) light brown, convex whorls (Figures 3B and 8). Protoconch W/L: 0.97. Apical angle 50° to 54°. Apical whorl from 180 to 220 µm in diameter. Protoconch ending in a weak spiral keel.</p><p>A specimen observed alive in a petri-dish (Figure 9) turned out to be rather sedate. It crawled slowly along in its preferred direction, with the siphon extending only a fraction of a mm in front of the siphonal canal. The foot is wide, tapering to a narrow point posteriorly and has distinctly recurved anterolateral corners. The foot and siphon is uniformly white.</p><p>Variability. This is a variable species, both as regards colour and shape (Figure 11). The Height to width ratio varies a lot as does the length and width of the siphonal canal. The colour may be light yellowish white with scattered light brown spiral cords, or darker yellow with reddish brown cords. However the colour is fading fast in preserved specimens and thus the colours in the descriptions may not be completely reliable. The colour pattern appears to vary geographically as well, as there is a much higher proportion of specimens with very light coloured spiral cords in the material from Skagerrak than in the material from further north on the coast. Fretter &amp; Graham (1985) mention a row of nine small teeth on inside of outer lip (as R. linearis see below), but this is very rarely the case even for large specimens in my material. The most reliable characters are the microsculpture consisting of well separated small pustules and the light brown wide angled protoconch with delicate diamond-shaped decussate sculpture.</p><p>Distribution. By Jeffreys (1867) stated to be more common in the northern parts of British waters than in the south, but with a distribution overlapping the one of R. linearis . Recorded from Malta (Cachia et al. 2001) and Italy (Spada 2008) in the Mediterranean to Finnmark (as R. linearis in G.O. Sars 1878). The latter record is based on a single empty shell from Hammerfest (71°N). In addition G.O. Sars reports a single specimen (live caught) from Lofoten. Judging from his drawing and description (in latin), the 9.5 mm long specimen is certainly R. aequalis and not R. linearis (see also citation of Marshall 1912, below). In my material common along the whole coast at least as far north as Kvaefjord, 68°50’N, in Troms county, but especially frequent (105 of the c. 245 live caught specimens) from the area just north of Bodø, at 67°15’N (mainly due to very diligent collecting efforts of Per Wikander, thus not necessarily more common there than elsewhere in northern Norway).</p><p>Remarks. Described by Jeffreys (1867:369) as a variety of R. linearis: “Shell broader than the typical form, with the whorls more rounded; ribs more numerous, and not so prominent or rugged; spiral striae closer or finer; apex yellowish white; coloured lines regularly distributed, and of a paler hue; in some specimens these markings are very faint or altogether wanting. L. 0.5. B. 0.225.” In a general way these characters match my material, but the ‘apex’ is rarely yellowish white. Monterosato (1884) was the first to elevate the ‘variety’ to full specific status, followed by among others Locard (1892) and Dautzenberg &amp; Fischer (1925), the latter based on material from the vicinity of Roscoff, Bretagne. Rodriguez Babio &amp; Thiriot-Quiévreux (1974) reported the two forms from Roscoff, but retained aequalis as a variety of linearis primarily based on the similarity of the protoconchs. They noted that in the vicinity of Roscoff, linearis was four times as common as aequalis .</p><p>Forbes &amp; Hanley (1853:471-472) described three ‘principal varieties’ of Mangelia linearis, the purple-tipped ( var. scabra), the blunt-ribbed ( var. intermedia) and the colourless form ( var. pallida). Even from this brief sentence it is tempting to equate the three varieties with respectively R. linearis, R. aequalis and R. obesa n.sp. Jeffreys (1867:369) introduced another ’variety’, Var. aequalis, which he explicitly states is a new name for the two ‘varieties’ Mangelia linearis vars intermedia and pallida of Forbes &amp; Hanley. Jeffreys thus merges the two varieties of Forbes &amp; Hanley, as he regards the difference between the ‘blunt-ribbed’ form and the ‘colourless’ form as too small or vague to justify giving a name to the colourless (or pure white) form of the species: “…in some specimens (of Var. aequalis) these markings are very faint or altogether wanting.” Jeffreys (1867:369).</p><p>Marshall (1912:299) disagreed with Jeffreys’ merging and renaming of the ‘varieties’, mentioning that R. linearis as well as the two ‘varieties’ intermedia and pallida described and figured by Forbes &amp; Hanley (1853) were three validly described ‘varieties’. If this is accepted, R. aequalis is a junior synonym of R. intermedia, while R. obesa n.sp. is a junior synonym of R. pallida . Since R. aequalis has been generally accepted as a full species since it was adopted by Monterosato (1884), while R. intermedia and R. pallida have never been used as valid names after Marshall (1912), they are better regarded as nomina oblita according to Article 23.9.2 of ICZN.</p><p>In North European literature, R. aequalis, has long been treated as a synonym of R. linearis . As already noted by Marshall (1912:299), the records of R. linearis in G.O. Sars (1878) from northern Norway are of this species (… except Sars’ fig. 2 (t. 23), which well represents the var. intermedia). Also Fretter &amp; Graham (1985) described and illustrated (their figures 368 and 369) R. aequalis as R. linearis . Their SEM photograph of the transition zone between protoconch and teleoconch particularly clearly shows the microsculpture (fine pustules) found in R. aequalis but not in R. linearis . E.H. Smith (1967a) may have been the first (after Jeffreys 1867) to clearly distinguish between these two species in British waters (see Discussion below), although he did not realise that he dealt with already described taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B330FFCAFFFEFC7A04E0FF5F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B33DFFCCFD7AFF3A0505FE9F.text	03C387C0B33DFFCCFD7AFF3A0505FE9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma obesa Høisaeter 2016	<div><p>Raphitoma obesa n.sp.</p><p>Figures 2D, 12 and 13</p><p>h t t p: / / z o o b a n k.o r g / 9 8 E 8 6 E D 3 -2 3 5 C - 41 E 8 - B B2 6 - 458ABE6A5F1C</p><p>Clathurella linearis var. pallida F. and H. - Marshall 1912:298 (?)</p><p>Raphitoma n.sp. - Høisaeter 2009</p><p>Type material. Holotype ZMBN 107135.</p><p>Type locality. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=5.1666665&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=60.2" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 5.1666665/lat 60.2)">Svinestangen</a>, Korsfjorden, Hordaland, Norway, 60°12’N, 5°10’E, c. 100 m.</p><p>Etymology. From Latin obesus, fat. Referring to the shape of the shell.</p><p>Material examined. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=5.15&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=60.283333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 5.15/lat 60.283333)">Only</a> the holotype; a specimen from Liholmsrennen, 60°17’N, 5°09’E, 80-95 m (shell destroyed when sample taken for DNA-analysis) ; a specimen from west of Frøo, Øygarden, 60°35’N, 70–75 m ; one from Mandnesholmen, Nesna, 66°14’N, 65- 63 m ; and one from Lille Hjartøy, Bodø, 67°17’N, 70– 60 m.</p><p>Description. Holotype (Figure 12) 7.0 x 3.6 mm, with five teleoconch whorls. Shell subfusiform with convex whorls and deeply incised sutures. Shell thin, glassy, wide (height 2.1 times the diameter). Spire occupying 34 % of total shell height. Diameter of adapical teleoconch whorl 745– 970 µm. Sculpture of moderately pronounced axial ribs crossed by fairly narrow spiral cords, six cords on penultimate whorl. The axial ribs disappear gradually towards the base. Shell yellowish white with spiral cords usually unpigmented, but sometimes with weak golden brown pigment. The ribs are narrow and separated by a wide ‘valley’, these being from 2 to 2.5 times as wide as the ribs. The rectangles defined by the cords and ribs are twice as wide as high. The surface between the spiral cords densely covered with fine, well separated, microscopic pustules (Figures 2D and 12), best observed between spiral cords in upper parts or in juvenile shells. The nodules produced by the crossing of cords and ribs distinct but not very acute, when seen in profile producing a ‘wavy’ aspect. Aperture occupying 47 % of total shell height, aperture width about 41 % of its height. Outer lip slightly undulating with an anal sinus near the suture almost rectangular with a width 90 % of its depth. Usually dense, but not very sharp growth lines between axial ribs (Figure 12). Siphonal canal moderately long, about 27 % of total shell height. No axial ribs on siphonal canal, but spirals wider and denser together than on the whorls proper. Protoconch with 3.5 to–4 pale, yellowish white whorls (same colour as teleoconch). Protoconch W/L: 0.96. Apical angle c. 50.5°. Apical whorl 160 to 180 µm in diameter. Apical whorl and half of the following with about nine to ten microscopic spiral striae; the next with decussate sculpture, the next with numerous slightly curved axial riblets on top third and delicate decussate grid on bottom two thirds of whorl. Protoconch ending in a weak spiral keel.</p><p>Variability. The limited material does not permit a thorough description of morphological variation, but as is evident from Figure 13, a specimen from northern Norway (Figure 13E) is much wider than the three from western Norway (Figures 13A, B, D). The lack of pigment on spiral cords is not absolute, as seen in Figure 13C.</p><p>Distribution. So far only found in fjords on the western coast of Norway, 80-100 m depth, mixed bottom material, and at two localities in Nordland county (66°- 67°N, 60-70 m depth). Recently reported from the Kola inlet on the Murman coast of Russia (Nekhaev 2014, as Raphitoma leufroyi), based on an empty shell, almost indistinguishable from Figure 13C above.</p><p>Remarks. This species was briefly described as Raphitoma n. sp. in Høisaeter (2009). It may have been described (as the variety pallida of R. linearis) already by Forbes &amp; Hanley (1853:471-472). As several forms of R. aequalis are practically colourless, the description of Forbes &amp; Hanley (1853:472) is too vague to confirm that their ‘variety’ is the same as R. obesa n.sp (“The variety pallida is essentially northern: it is more or less devoid of colouring, has still finer closer and less elevated sculpture, and is even more produced in shape than the richly tinted and prickly southern variety”). Jeffreys (1867:369) merged this ‘variety’ with ‘var. ’ intermedia thus rejecting the existence of a separate ‘colourless’ variety. Marshall fully agrees with Forbes &amp; Hanley in this matter, and objects to Jeffreys’ merging of the two ‘varieties’ to the ‘variety’ aequalis . Marshall’s opinion concerning the status of Var. pallida F. and H. is somewhat equivocal, however, as he equals this variety with var. aequalis Jeff., while no such equality is claimed for var. intermedia . Anyway, as stated for R. aequalis above, the name pallida is better regarded as a nomen oblitum according to Article 23.9.2 of ICZN.</p><p>The most conspicuous difference from R. aequalis is the almost complete lack of colour pattern, and the comparatively wider body whorl. The shell is thinner and almost translucent. The protoconch is invariably of the same hue as the teleoconch (whitish or slightly yellowish), while that of R. aequalis is of a golden yellow-brown hue, sometimes with a whitish apical whorl. Whether it is a good species or not is impossible to conclude based on the available material. Three morphological character states support a specific status, the shape of the shell, the scarcity of shell pigment, and the shape of the columella in fully grown specimens. Also the microsculpture with distinct and well separated pustules on the partly transparent shell support a specific status. In addition the lack of protoconch colour argues for a separate taxon. The considerable variability in the morphology of R. aequalis certainly does not make it easier to decide. All things considered using the name, Raphitoma obesa n.sp. for these five specimens is the best basis for future studies, preferably by molecular methods.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B33DFFCCFD7AFF3A0505FE9F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B33BFFCEFFD2FE1A03BBFDDF.text	03C387C0B33BFFCEFFD2FE1A03BBFDDF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma linearis (Montagu 1803)	<div><p>Raphitoma linearis (Montagu, 1803)</p><p>Figures 1A, 2A, 3A and 14 - 17</p><p>Murex linearis Montagu, 1803:261, Tab. 9, f. 4</p><p>Defrancia linearis (Montagu, 1803) - Jeffreys 1867; Friele 1874; Norman 1879 [in part]</p><p>Clathurella linearis, Mont. [in part] - G.O. Sars 1878 Cirillia linearis, Mtg. - Monterosato 1884</p><p>Philbertia linearis (Montagu, 1803) - Rodriguez Babio &amp; Thiriot-Quiévreux 1974; Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976 [in part]; Høisaeter 1986 [in part]</p><p>Raphitoma linearis (Montagu, 1803) - Rolán 1983 [in part?]; Fretter &amp; Graham 1985 [in part]; Graham 1988 [in part]; Sabelli et al. 1990; Rolán et al. 1998; Cachia et al. 2001; Öztürk et al. 2004; Høisaeter 2009</p><p>Raphitoma (R.) linearis (Montagu, 1803) - van Aartsen et al. 1984 [in part?]; Smith &amp; Heppell 1991 [in part]; Heppell et al. 1997 [in part]</p><p>Cenodagreutes coccyginus E.H. Smith, 1967a:3</p><p>Type material. Lectotype designated by Rolán et al. (1998),</p><p>BMNH 1995090 (one of several syntypes). Holotype and one paratype of Cenodagreutes coccyginus E.H. Smith, 1967, in California Academy of Sciences, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Type number 322 (holotype) and 323. Photographs of both types shown in Figure 17 below.</p><p>Type locality. Falmouth Harbour, Cornwall, England . Type locality for Cenodagreutes coccyginus E.H. Smith, 1967, off <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-4.95&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=55.733334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -4.95/lat 55.733334)">Tan Buoy</a> between Great Cumbrae and Little Cumbrae Islands, Firth of Clyde, Scotland (55°44’N, 04°57’W) on a sandy shell bottom in 17 m.</p><p>Material examined. Ninety-seven specimens from 36 stations from c. 58° to 61°N on the coast of Norway .</p><p>Description. Based mainly on a specimen from Bukkasundet (1966), 7.4 x 3.5 mm, (Figure 16A), and another from Bukkasundet (2007), 5.9 x 2.8 mm, (Figure 14). Shell fairly thick and opaque; moderately narrow. Shells longer than 4.9 mm with height 2.10 to 2.32 times the diameter, and body whorl 64–70 % of total shell height. Shell colour varies, but always with a comparatively light ground colour and dark brown nodules on the axial ribs, alternating with scattered ribs with white nodules. Spiral cords nos 5 and 7 from above on penultimate whorl, with uninterrupted dark brown colour, while the spiral cord between these two is pure white (Figures 14 and 15). Ground colour darker on adapical teleoconch whorl and below periphery on body whorl. Five teleoconch whorls (on 7.4 mm long shell) convex (but varying a lot, see below) with a deep and distinct suture. Adapical teleoconch whorl 625–925 µm in diameter. Sculpture of axial ribs crossed by spiral cords, five or six narrow cords, the uppermost distinctly less prominent than the rest, on the penultimate whorl. The interspaces are around three times the width of the cords. Tubercles where cords cross axial ribs form rather sharp ‘points’. Aperture elongated oval drawn out into moderately long siphonal canal. Sculpture on siphonal canal of wide spiral cords crossed by equally wide ribs. A shallow anal sinus in outer lip near suture. Microsculpture (Figures 1A, 2A and 14) of contiguous, irregular granules, not separate pustules as in R. aequalis and R. obesa n.sp. Protoconch (Figures 3A and 14) 3.5 to 4 whorls, narrow, W/L: 0.96, apical angle 43.5°–46.3°, with a coarse decussate grid and a distinct keel at transition to teleoconch. Protoconch colour usually dark purplish brown closest to the teleoconch and opaque yellowish white at the apex, rarely much lighter throughout.</p><p>Variability. Specimens from the Mediterranean apparently have pure white ground colour with fine brown spiral lines (see Remarks below). One of my specimens approach this colour, viz. the one illustrated in Figure 14 and 16C. This specimen with most contrast (yellowish white against dark brown) was the most recently caught, having been kept in ethanol for only a week, others have been stored in ethanol for some 40 years before being photographed. The colour variation is partly due to the effect of ethanol. In some of the stored specimens, however, both the ground colour and the spiral cords (yellowish brown) are much lighter than the majority. Usually the brown spiral cords are darker than in R. aequalis (e.g. Figure 16E also photographed alive, Figure 15) but with a large overlap.</p><p>The specimen studied alive (Figure 15) had foot and siphon uniformly white. The specimen was rather lively, frequently and swiftly changing directions while crawling. The siphon in front of the siphonal canal is long, tubular and slightly narrower in front. The foot is deeply embayed in the mid line, and has recurved anterolateral corners. As seen in Figure 15, the foot is very flexible and aids the animal to rapidly turn around if placed upside down on the substrate.</p><p>Distribution. Recorded from Morocco and the Canary Islands to northern Norway, including the entire Mediterranean (Cachia et al. 2001, Öztürk et al. 2004, Giannuzzi-Savelli, pers. comm, and G.O. Sars 1878). The North European records in the literature (Friele 1874, G.O. Sars 1878, Norman 1879, Fretter &amp; Graham 1985, Høisaeter 1986, Smith &amp; Heppel 1991) are just as likely to be the more common R. aequalis than R. linearis (see above). The material I have seen, is from the Grimstad area on the Skagerrak coast and north to Raunefjorden south of Bergen (60°15’ N). There are no verified records north of Sognefjorden, except for a single doubtful shell from 67°N.</p><p>Remarks. Norwegian specimens of R. linearis are morphologically similar to R. aequalis, and the two are often hard to tell apart. The best way to separate R. linearis from R. aequalis is the microsculpture (see above), the slightly more ‘spiky’ macrosculpture, and the knobby spirals on the outer siphonal canal as opposed to the smooth spirals in R. aequalis . Most specimens have a very dark purplish colour in the transition whorls between protoconch and teleoconch. A further argument for the specific separation of R. aequalis and R. linearis is the observation of E.H. Smith (1967a, b) that there are several differences in the internal organs (alimentary tract and reproductive system) between Cenodagreutes aethus and C. coccyginus, here regarded as synoms for R. aequalis and R. linearis respectively. The morphological data indicate that R. linearis and R. aequalis are closely related. The fact that both species lack radula, as opposed to several other species of Raphitoma s.l., e.g. R. purpurea and R. concinna, supports the hypothesis of a closer relationship between these two species than of any of them to either R. purpurea or R. concinna .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B33BFFCEFFD2FE1A03BBFDDF	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B339FFD0FD78FDDA068CF9BF.text	03C387C0B339FFD0FD78FDDA068CF9BF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma purpurea (Montagu 1803)	<div><p>Raphitoma purpurea (Montagu, 1803)</p><p>Figures 18 - 20</p><p>Murex purpureus Montagu, 1803:260, Tab. 9, f. 2 Defrancia purpurea (Montagu, 1803) - Jeffreys 1867; Friele 1874; Norman 1879</p><p>Defrancia purpurea var. oblonga Jeffreys 1867:374 (?) Clathurella purpurea, Mont. - G.O. Sars 1878</p><p>Philbertia purpurea (Montagu, 1803) - Monterosato 1884; Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976; Høisaeter 1986</p><p>Raphitoma purpurea (Montagu, 1803) - Rolán 1983; Fretter &amp; Graham 1985; Graham 1988; Sabelli et al. 1990; Smith &amp; Heppell 1991; Heppell et al. 1997; Cachia et al. 2001; Høisaeter 2009</p><p>Type material. Lectotype and two paralectotypes, designated by Rolán et al. (1998), BMNH 1995089. (Figure 20C). Holotype of Defrancia purpurea var. oblonga, USNM 190029 (Warén 1980, Pusateri et al. 2012) (Figure 20B).</p><p>Type locality. Salcombe Bay, Devon, England .</p><p>Material examined. Six empty shells from: Hjartøysundet, Bodø, 67°17.5’N, 75- 64 m ; W of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=11.366667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=64.916664" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 11.366667/lat 64.916664)">Svinøy</a>, 64°55’N, 11°22’E, 175- 20 m , shell sand; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=11.416667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=64.955" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 11.416667/lat 64.955)">Lamholmen</a> north of Gjerdingen, 64°57.30’ N, 11°25’E, 80- 30 m ; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=11.121667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=64.67" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 11.121667/lat 64.67)">Outer</a> part of Foldafjorden 64°40.20’ N, 11°07.30’E, 60- 20 m ; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=8.433333&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=58.25" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 8.433333/lat 58.25)">Near Lillesand</a>, 58°15’N, 08°26’E, 8 m , and a shell from Bergen (ZMBN 28685) .</p><p>Description. (Based mainly on an, immature, specimen from Hjartøysundet, Figure 18, with additional details from Fretter &amp; Graham 1985). Shell long and narrow (height from 2.26 to 2.35 times the diameter), with up to 12 whorls at 20 mm height. No shells longer than c. 12 mm so far found in Norwegian waters. Shell colour impossible to ascertain from my empty shells, but stated to be brownish to purplish with scattered whitish specs and ribs (see shell from Bretagne, Figure 20A). Sculpture of numerous axial ribs and almost equally strong spiral cords. ‘Valleys’ between spiral cords only slightly wider than the cords. Five to six fully developed spiral cords on penultimate whorl, but with secondary, narrower cords between the uppermost primary spirals. Body whorl 65 to 66 % of total height. Siphonal canal short and wide. Sculpture on siphonal canal of thickened spirals sectioned into numerous nodules by the axial ribs. Outer lip thickened and (usually) with eleven coarse denticles on the inside. Fairly deep and narrow anal sinus. Protoconch (only conserved in the specimen from Hjartøysundet, Figure 18) short and narrow, with three whorls and apical angle 40° to 45°. Protoconch W/L: 0.97. The protoconch is smaller than in any of the other species found in Norwegian waters. Microsculpture hard to tell from old, worn shells, but appear to consist of rather coarse granulation (Figure 18).</p><p>Variability. The six shells seen (Figure 19) have a fairly constant morphology. The denticulation inside the thickened outer lip is present only in mature shells, as is the secondary spiral cords on body whorl.</p><p>Distribution. In older Norwegian literature reported as rare around Bergen (M. Sars according to Jeffreys 1867, Friele 1874, Norman 1879, Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976), and from Kristiansund (Danielssen according to Jeffreys 1867). In my material three empty (old) shells from 65°N, and one fresh shell from around 67°N, in addition to a single shell from the Skagerrak coast. Also reported from Bohuslän in Sweden (Malm according to Jeffreys 1867). Around the British Isles, it occurs everywhere except on the North Sea coast. Most common in the southern part, but also found occasionally around Shetland (Seaward 1990). Elsewhere found from the Atlantic coast of France and southwards to the Strait of Gibraltar. According to Cachia et al. (2001) also in the Mediterranean at least as far east as Malta, although Monterosato (1884) and van Aartsen et al. (1984) claim that it does not occur in the Mediterranean. Not included in newer check-lists of Mollusca from the Mediterranean.</p><p>Remarks. Characterized by thickened outer lip with heavy denticulation, short and narrow protoconch and very prominent tubercles where axial ribs are crossed by spiral costae. The species is reported to reach 23 mm in length (Rolán 1983), so the shells in my material are small, although the heavy teeth on the inner lip on all but one of the shells seen, indicate that they are mature. Jeffreys (1867:374) described a ‘variety’, Defrancia purpurea var. oblonga from the Channel Islands (Figure 20B above) which is distributed along the southern and western coast of the British Isles as well as the Atlantic coast of France. The ‘variety’ is accepted as a valid species, Raphitoma oblonga (Jeffreys, 1867) by Pusateri et al. 2012. Compared with the sympatric form of R. purpurea (Figure 20A) it is less solid and turreted and with significantly more ribs and cords. According to Jeffreys (1867:374) the colour and other characteristics of the soft parts are different for the two species. R. oblonga has not been recorded from Norwegian waters.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B339FFD0FD78FDDA068CF9BF	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B327FFD0FFD1F93A03B2F9DF.text	03C387C0B327FFD0FFD1F93A03B2F9DF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	(Leufroyia) Monterosato 1884	<div><p>Subgenus Leufroyia Monterosato, 1884</p><p>Type species. Pleurotoma leufroyi Michaud, 1828, S.D.</p><p>Crosse (1885) (fide Pusateri et al. 2012). Recent, Mediterranean</p><p>coast of France.</p><p>Diagnosis. Raphitomids with broad, wavy axial ribs; dense and numerous, low spiral cords (three to four on adapical teleoconch whorl). Microsculpture of dense, rather conspicuous growth lines, or rugae, no granules or pustules. Protoconch with three or four whorls, the apical one wider (at c. 220 to 250 µm diameter) and lower than in the ‘multispiral’ species in the Raphitoma group, and with a weak, incipient rounded keel for a quarter of a whorl at the transition to the teleoconch. The characteristic cancellated sculpture covers 1½ of these whorls, while the apical 1½ whorls are covered by eight to nine punctuated spiral striae.</p><p>Remarks. Leufroyia was introduced by Monterosato (1884) as one of two genera, the other being Cordieria (Monterosato, 1884), encompassing Raphitoma sensu Bouchet &amp; Gofas 2015 .The diagnosis was brief (“Gruppo ben distinto ad anfratti rigonfi, costati, spiralmente striati; bocca ingrossata internamente, levigata, senza denti nè solchi”) [“Distinct group with convex whorls, with costae, spirally striated; aperture inflated, internally smooth, without teeth or grooves”]. Most of these descriptive terms could be applied to many other species of Raphitoma s.l. However the group was well distinguished by the three species included, R. leufroyi, R. concinna (Scacchi, 1836) and R. erronea (Monterosato, 1884) . Later authors have used Leufroyia both as a genus and a subgenus, but have apparently had difficulties in specifying the morphological characters distinguishing the taxon. Defined by van Aartsen et al. (1984:91) as: “...species with noncarinate, but still diagonally cancellate protoconch whorls,...”; by Campani (1999): “Protoconch multispiral of four whorls, with diagonally cancellated sculpture on at least the two lower whorls, not carinate but regularly rounded.” [translated from Italian]; and by Cachia et al. (2001:63): “Protoconch consisting of three rounded whorls, first blunt, last two cancellated, rather oblique ribs on body whorl”. In my opinion (based on the Norwegian material), the main diagnostic morphological characters are the details of the (micro)sculpture as specified above. The protoconch is certainly different from other Raphitoma species, but the number of whorls and the presence or absence of a terminal keel might be of specific rather than generic value, as evidenced by the SEM-photo in Campani (1999) of a protoconch belonging to R. leufroyi which is very similar to my R. concinna, but with four rather than three whorls, and no visible keel.</p><p>A single Norwegian species is referable to the subgenus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B327FFD0FFD1F93A03B2F9DF	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
03C387C0B327FFD3FD78F9DA06E8FA9F.text	03C387C0B327FFD3FD78F9DA06E8FA9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Raphitoma (Leufroyia) concinna (Scacchi 1836)	<div><p>Raphitoma (Leufroyia) concinna (Scacchi, 1836)</p><p>Figures 2F, 3D and 21 - 23</p><p>Pleurotoma concinna Scacchi, 1836:12, Figure 18 (fide Cretella et al. 2005)</p><p>Raphitoma concinna (Scacchi, 1836) - Rolán 1983; Sabelli et al. 1990; Öztürk et al. 2004; Høisaeter 2009; CLEMAM 2014; Gofas 2015b Defrancia Leufroyi Michaud - Jeffreys 1867; Friele 1874; Norman 1879 non Pleurotoma leufroyi Michaud, 1828:121</p><p>Clathurella Leufroyi, Mich. - G.O. Sars 1878</p><p>Philbertia leufroyi (Michaud) - Hubendick &amp; Warén 1976; Høisaeter 1986</p><p>Raphitoma leufroyi (Michaud, 1828) - Fretter &amp; Graham 1985; Graham 1988; Cachia et al. 2001</p><p>Fusus Boothi Brown in J. Smith, 1839:98</p><p>Leufroyia Boothii, Brown - Monterosato 1884</p><p>Raphitoma boothii (Brown in Smith, 1839) - Olsen 1994 Raphitoma (Leufroyia) boothii (Brown in Smith, 1839) - van Aartsen et al. 1984; Smith &amp; Heppell 1991; Heppell et al. 1997</p><p>Type material. Presumed lost (Cretella et al. 2005)</p><p>Type locality. “ In sinu Neapolitano et Tarentino parum frequens ” (Cretella et al. 2005).</p><p>Material examined. Sixty-two specimens from 31 stations from c. 58°N to 61°N on the coast of Norway. A single juvenile from Hjartøysundet, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=14.338333&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=67.17834" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 14.338333/lat 67.17834)">Bodø</a>, Nordland county, 67°10.7’N, 14°20.3’E, 35 m, coarse shell gravel .</p><p>Description. Based mainly on a specimen from Hillersholmen (Figure 21), 10.5 x 5.2 mm) and one from O-sundet (Figure 23C), 11.2 x 4.6 mm. Maximum size of those measured, 12.1 mm (specimen from O-sundet, Figure 23A). Shell thick and opaque; height 2.04 to 2.45 times the diameter (for shells longer than 9.5 mm), thus extremely variable (compare Figure 21 with Figure 23C). Body whorl 64-72 % (usually between 70 and 72 %) of total shell height. Shell colour variable, from dark brown to bright yellow, usually with dark spiral cords on a light-coloured background. Teleoconch whorls five (for 11-12 mm long specimens), convex with deep and distinct suture. Adapical teleoconch whorl 775-873 µm. Sculpture of numerous wide and dense axial ribs crossed by wide and low spiral cords, 12 on penultimate whorl. Distance between cords almost twice the width of the cord. Tubercles where cords cross axial ribs, low transverse swellings on ribs. Axial ribs fading out towards base, not discernible on siphonal canal. In some large shells hardly any ribs on body whorl. Siphonal canal of varying length usually short (but compare Figure 23F with 26G). Shallow and wide anal sinus in outer lip near suture. Outer lip thickened but not denticulated. Microsculpture (Figures 2F and 21) of growth lines and irregular rugae, never isolated pustules or granules. Protoconch (Figures 3D and 21) of three whorls, nine spiral rows of isolated ‘points’ on the apical 1½ whorl, the rest with diagonal diamonds as in other ‘multispiral’ species of Raphitoma . Diameter of apical whorl 225–250 µm. Apical angle 48°–54.5° (usually more than 50°). Protoconch W/L: 1.1. Protoconch colour same as teleoconch colour, usually with white apical tip (Figure 21). Radula illustrated in G.O. Sars (1878:Tab. VIII, Figure 3).</p><p>Remarks. Which name to use for this common species in the North Atlantic has been highly disputed. The North Atlantic taxon was originally named R. boothi (J. Smith, 1839), presumably without any comparison with Mediterranean relatives. Jeffreys (1867) compared British specimens with Mediterranean specimens of R. leufroyi and R. concinna . He concluded that the two were synonyms and that neither could be distinguished from R. boothi . R. leufroyi being the oldest should thus be the name to use. This decision has been adopted by most North European authors, and the species is listed as R. leufroyi in most check-lists from the region (e.g. Høisaeter 1986, Graham 1988, Seaward 1990). However, authors from the Mediterranean region have not necessarily agreed. Thus Monterosato (1884) explicitly considered R. boothi to be different from R. leufroyi, and R. concinna to be a species distinct from both. In his opinion the two latter are confined to the Mediterranean, whereas the former is found only in the North Atlantic, outside the Mediterranean. Both R. concinna and R. leufroyi were reported from Ria de Vigo on the northwestern coast of Spain by Rolán (1983), R. concinna being by far the most common of the two. Van Aartsen et al. (1984) also considered all three to be specifically distinct, separating R. boothi from R. leufroyi . They did not compare R. concinna with R. boothi . Cachia et al. (2001) do not mention R. boothi, but report both R. concinna and R. leufroyi from Maltese waters. Warén (pers. comm.) has not been able to find any morphological differences between the Mediterranean R. concinna and specimens from the North Atlantic. Recently Gofas (2015b) and CLEMAM (2015) have accepted R. boothi as a synonym of R. concinna, and the latter should thus be the valid name for the North Atlantic species. According to descriptions and available illustrations (e.g. van Aartsen et al. 1984; Cachia et al. 2001 and Rolán 2005) R. leufroyi has a characteristic colour pattern and very prominent axial ribs, not found in Norwegian material. I follow the recent consensus and regard all members of the subgenus Leufroyia from the North Atlantic outside the Mediterranean to belong to R. concinna (Scacchi, 1836), and R. boothi (J. Smith, 1839) to be a subjective synonym of R. concinna .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387C0B327FFD3FD78F9DA06E8FA9F	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Høisaeter, Tore	Høisaeter, Tore (2016): A taxonomic review of the Norwegian species of Raphitoma (Gastropoda: Conoidea: Raphitomidae). Fauna norvegica 36: 9-32, DOI: 10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839, URL: https://doi.org/10.5324/fn.v36i0.1839
