Danilia Brusina, 1865

Herbert, D. G., 2012, A revision of the Chilodontidae (Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda: Seguenzioidea) of southern Africa and the south-western Indian Ocean, African Invertebrates 53 (2), pp. 381-381 : 410-412

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5733/afin.053.0209

persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Danilia Brusina, 1865


Genus Danilia Brusina, 1865 View in CoL

Olivia: Cantraine 1835: 387 View in CoL [non Olivia Bertolini, 1810 View in CoL (?Porifera)]. Type species: Olivia otaviana Cantraine, 1835 View in CoL , by monotypy.

Craspedotus: Philippi 1847:23 View in CoL [non Craspedotus Schoenherr, 1844 (Coleoptera) View in CoL ]. Type species: Monodonta limbata Philippi, 1844 [= Monodonta tinei Calcara, 1839 ], by monotypy.

Otavia: Gray 1847: 145 View in CoL (non Risso, 1826), laps. cal. for Olivia Cantraine, 1835 View in CoL .

? Heliciella View in CoL : O.G. Costa 1861: 64. Type species: Heliciella costellata O.G View in CoL . Costa, 1861, by subsequent designation (Dall 1927: 134).

Danilia: Brusina 1865: 25 View in CoL . Type species: Monodonta limbata Philippi, 1844 [= Monodonta tinei Calcara, 1839 ], by monotypy.

Nomenclatural remarks: Beu and Climo (1974) stated that Brusina (1865) proposed the name Danilia View in CoL as a replacement name for the homonymous Olivia Cantraine, 1835 View in CoL . However, I can find no evidence in either Brusina (1865) or Brusina (1866) that this was his intention. In fact, he made no mention of Olivia Cantraine, 1835 View in CoL . Had he proposed Danilia View in CoL expressly as a replacement for Olivia View in CoL , the type species of Danilia View in CoL would have been that of Olivia View in CoL (ICZN 1999: Art. 67.8), namely Olivia otaviana Cantraine, 1835 View in CoL (by monotypy). Instead, the type species of Danilia View in CoL (by monotypy) is Monodonta limbata Philippi, 1844 [= Monodonta tinei Calcara, 1839 ]. The type species of Olivia View in CoL , O. otaviana View in CoL , has traditionally also been considered to be synonymous with Calcara’s Monodonta tinei and is the earlier name, but Palazzi and Villari (2001) consider O. otaviana View in CoL to represent a distinct fossil species – an opinion shared by Landau et al. (2003). In such case, the type species of Danilia View in CoL and Cantraine’s Olivia View in CoL are not the same and they are thus subjective rather than objective synonyms.

Keen (1960) listed Heliciella O.G. Costa, 1861 , in the synonymy of Olivia , but Beu and Climo (1974) considered the affinity of this taxon with Olivia and thus with Danilia to be debateable, since its type species, H. costellata O.G. Costa, 18612, was based on a very juvenile shell. (The specimen of H. costellata figured by O.G. Costa (1861) has a diameter of 1.0 mm and comprises only approx. 1.5 teleoconch whorls.) They chose instead to employ the younger name Danilia on account of this uncertainty. However, Monterosato (1884) had earlier stated that H. costellata was a juvenile shell of Danilia tinei and certainly the figures of juvenile D. tinei provided by Scaperrotta et al. (2009) clearly support the view that H. costellata is a juvenile Danilia . However, Palazzi and Villari (2001), recognising H. costellata as a species of Danilia , believed it to be distinct from D. tinei and to represent a second Recent European species of this genus. Thus Heliciella and Danilia are evidently synonymous and since both are valid names, the earlier one, Heliciella , ought to be afforded priority. However, in order to maintain prevailing usage, and in accordance with ICZN, Art. 23.9 (ICZN 1999), the principle of priority can be moderated, provided the conditions of Art. and Art. are met. In this regard, I am not aware that Heliciella has been used as a valid name after 1899 (Art. and Danilia has been used more than 25 times in the last 50 years by at least 10 different authors (Art. ( Beu & Climo 1974; Powell 1979; Piani 1980; Aimassi et al. 1983; Guidastri et al. 1984; Spadini 1986; Graham 1988; Vaught 1989; Hickman & McLean 1990; Poppe & Goto 1991; Wilson 1993; Giannuzzi-Savelli et al. 1994; Jansen 1996; Millard 1997; Higo et al. 1999; Sasaki 2000; Palazzi & Villari 2001; Vilvens 2001; Spencer et al. 2002; Landau et al. 2003; Rolán 2005; Vilvens &

2 Beu and Climo (1974) cited the type species of Heliciella as H. costellata O.G. Costa, 1861 , by monotypy. In fact, O.G. Costa (1861) described two species within his new genus Heliciella , H. costellata and H. mutabilis . The type species of Heliciella was not fixed until Dall (1927: 134) formally designated it to be H. costellata [although Monterosato (1884: 109) might also be deemed to have done the same]. A subsequent designation of H. mutabilis as the type species of Heliciella by Bouchet and Warén (1988: 86) is invalid.

Héros 2005; Poppe et al. 2006; Crocetta & Spanu 2008; Poppe & Tagaro 2008; Kano 2009; Scaperrotta et al. 2009; Spencer et al. 2009; Bandel 2010; De Simone & Kosuge 2010). Some of these, despite recognising the priority of Heliciella over Danilia , have continued to use the latter as the valid name. Therefore, in accordance with Art. 23.9, Danilia is to be afforded priority over the earlier, but unused Heliciella . Danilia thus becomes a nomen protectum and Heliciella a nomen oblitum.

Remarks: The genus Danilia is known primarily from relatively deep water and has a fossil record extending back to the Lower Cretaceous ( Beu & Climo 1974). Nine Recent species are known from the Indo-West Pacific, eight of which were discussed and illustrated (mostly type specimens) in a useful contribution by Vilvens and Héros (2005). The differences between the species are in some cases small, and Beu and Climo (1974) cautioned that without more detailed comparative study, it is impossible to be certain whether each of these nominal taxa represents a genuinely distinct species, or whether there are fewer, more widespread and sculpturally variable ones – an observation with which I concur. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that most descriptions have been based on very few specimens and thus give no indication of intraspecific variability. These difficulties notwithstanding, I describe below two additional species, since neither appears clearly referable to any of the described taxa.

Danilia species generally live on hard substrata.Whilst most species seem to be scarce, a Mediterranean species, tentatively identified as Danilia costellata (O.G. Costa, 1861) View in CoL , may be locally abundant in colonies of the gorgonian Corallium rubrum (Linnaeus, 1758) ( Crocetta & Spanu 2008) View in CoL . Schepman (1908), Beu & Climo (1974) and De Simone & Kosuge (2010) also reported species living in deep-water coral communities. D. textilis View in CoL (below) was found living primarily in sponge dominated communities, but such communities frequently included deep-water corals. Guidastri et al. (1984) and Smriglio et al. (1989) reported a similar association between Putzeysia wiseri (Calcara, 1842) View in CoL and deep-water Scleractinia View in CoL in the Mediterranean.

The radula of Danilia tinei (Calcara, 1839) View in CoL was illustrated by Guidastri et al. (1984 as D. otaviana View in CoL ) and that of D. insperata View in CoL was figured and discussed in detail by Beu and Climo (1974). That of D. textilis View in CoL described below is very similar.












Danilia Brusina, 1865

Herbert, D. G. 2012

Danilia: Brusina 1865: 25

BRUSINA, S. 1865: 25


COSTA, O. G. 1861: 64


GRAY, J. E. 1847: 145

Olivia: Cantraine 1835: 387

CANTRAINE, F. 1835: 387
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF