Trochodaphne cuprosa, Criscione & Hallan & Puillandre & Fedosov, 2021

Criscione, Francesco, Hallan, Anders, Puillandre, Nicolas & Fedosov, Alexander, 2021, Where the snails have no name: a molecular phylogeny of Raphitomidae (Neogastropoda: Conoidea) uncovers vast unexplored diversity in the deep seas of temperate southern and eastern Australia, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 191, pp. 961-1000 : 990

publication ID


publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Trochodaphne cuprosa



( FIGS 4D, 5A)

Z o o B a n k r e g i s t r a t i o n: u r n: l s i d: z o o b a n k. org:act: 169E6E79-B8C7-4169-A321-2EF87AE84C71.

Holotype: Australia, New South Wales, Jervis CMR, 2650 m, IN2017_ V03 _056, (–35.333, 151.258), one wet ( AMS C.571611). GoogleMaps

Distribution: Known only from the type locality.

Etymology: The epithet is derived from the Latin adjective cuprosus, coppery, referring to the coloration of its shell.


Shell ( Fig. 4D) (SL = 12.6, SW = 9) subglobose, thin-walled, semitranslucent. Protoconch ( Fig. 5A) multispiral, broadly conical, orange, of about three evenly convex whorls; protoconch sculpture diagonally cancellate. Protoconch–teleoconch transition clearly defined, weakly sinuate. Teleoconch of about 2.7 copper-hued whorls, suture moderately impressed. Teleoconch whorls broad, strongly convex in outline, with no clearly defined subsutural ramp. Teleoconch sculpture of dense, low, regularly spaced cords alternate strong and weak (about 40 each on last whorl), latter becoming indistinct towards base of last adult whorl. Microsculpture of dense, barely detectable collabral growth lines. Siphonal canal clearly demarcated from shell base, straight, sculptured with low longitudinal cords. Aperture wide, ovate, more than two thirds of shell length; outer lip thin. Anal sinus indistinct. Anatomy unknown.


See above for comparison with Globodaphne pomum .

In terms of its shell morphology, Trochodaphne cuprosa bears some similarity to the genus Lusitanops in its overall convex whorl outline, sculpture dominated by spiral elements, and shallow anal sinus, particularly when compared to Lusitanops dictyota Sysoev, 1997 . However, the latter has notably broader whorls than the type species. We are reluctant to consider this new taxon as Lusitanops , as neither the type species L. lusitanicus nor L. dictyota possess such a distinctly globose shell as that of Tro. cuprosa , which in that regard more resembles Glo. pomum than Lusitanops . Sysoev (1997) noted that L. dictyota does not possess a radula, but no anatomical data are available for Tro. cuprosa . Furthermore, with the exception of L. dictyota (whose placement in the genus is based solely on shell characters), species of Lusitanops bear a weak and short siphonal canal ( Bouchet & Warén, 1980), whereas in Tro. cuprosa the canal is of moderate length and clearly demarcated from the last adult whorl as seen on its left side (when observed in apertural view; see: Fig. 4D). Trochodaphne cuprosa is also similar to some species of Teretiopsis (e.g. T. abyssalis Kantor & Sysoev, 1989 ), but the latter has a narrower shell with clearly angulated whorls. Some species in the genus Phymorhynchus (for example, P. major Bouchet & Warén, 2001 or P. ovatus Bouchet & Warén, 2001 ) also have (sub)globose shells, with strongly convex whorls and closely set rounded cords, but both of these species are notably larger, with thick, chalky white shells. Trochodaphne cuprosa may also superficially resemble Xanthodaphne in that the latter also has somewhat inflated whorls with distinct spiral elements, but the type species X. membranacea has a well-developed anal sinus, a more distinctly shouldered, less convex whorl profile, less prominent spiral sculpture, and is also far less globose than Trochodaphne .