Pelseneer, 1903 : 19 Powell, 1951 : 104 Dell, 1990 : 102 Numanami & Okutani, 1991 : 38 Numanami, 1996 : 55 Description of two new deep­water species of the genus Brookula Iredale, 1912 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Trochoidea), with a revision of the genus for the Subantarctic and Arctic Sector of the Atlantic Ocean * Schwabe, Enrico Engl, Winfried Zootaxa 2008 1866 187 204 NDV4 Powell, 1951 Powell 1951 [151,525,151,177] Gastropoda Liotiidae Brookula CoL Animalia Seguenziida 12 199 Mollusca species pfefferi   ?  Cyclostrema decussatum  Pelseneer, 1903: 19, pl. 5, fig. 48.  Brookula pfefferi  Powell, 1951: 104, pl. 5, fig. 8.    Brookula rossiana  Dell, 1990: 102, fig. 169.    Brookula sinusbreidensis  Numanami & Okutani, 1991: 38, figs 2–6.  Brookula delli  Numanami, 1996: 55, figs 30A–E.    Holotypeof  B. pfefferi(NHM 1961.368).   Typelocality: Atlantic Ocean, South Georgia, off mouth of Stromness Harbour ( 54°04’S 36°27’W– 53°58’S 36°26’W), 155– 178 m. OD.  Material examined: 40 specimens( ZSMMol 20021687), Weddell Sea sector of the AntarcticPeninsula ( 63°01.10’S 61°09.10’W), 311–365 m, ANT XVII/3 ( EASIZ3).   Remarks:This is the only species for which numerous specimens were available. The shell morphology of  B. pfefferiis sufficiently described in Absalão et al.(2001)and Zelaya et al.(2006)but at least a first preliminary (excluding the ctenidia) overview of the external bauplan of the species may be given here ( Fig. 9). Radula data were provided by Zelaya et al.(2006). A detailed histological examination is being undertaken by Thomas Kunze (Ludwig­Maximilians University, Munich, Germany). The cylindrical head has a cloven, obtusely pointed snout. There is a pair of long, thick cephalic tentacles that show in their anterior half laterally dense fringes of sensory papillae. It is likely that the short rudiment on the base of the cephalic tentacle ( Fig. 9C) belongs to the eye stalk (eyes are not visble in the examined specimen), but this has to be confirmed by the histological data. The foot is fleshy and elongate, anteriorly with two wide, conical foot lappets and posteriorly, under the horny, circular, multispiral operculum ( Fig. 9D) with two shorter ones. Laterally between the anterior and posterior foot lappets a fringe of about 12 short, smooth, elongate epipodial tentacles is situated; at least on the dried animal, the tentacles do not show epipodial sense organs. There is a dense fringe of slender, hair­like cilia on the lateral foot margins. Immediately behind the right cephalic tentacle ( Figs 9A, C, E; marked with “*”) we detected a structure, which could be a penis, but also requires confirmation by histology. Examination of the shell by SEM showed that the the inner shell layer of the aperture does not consist of a prismatic nacreous layer as typical for iridescence (see Fuchigami & Sasaki 2005).  Absalão et al.(2001)failed in locate the holotypeof  Cyclostrema decussatum Pelseneer, 1903, and Zelaya et al.(2006)did not take that species into account. The holotypeof this species should be together with the other Pelseneer typesin the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium, but according to Yves Terryn (Scientific Associate), who searched the collection for it on the authors request, the typeis not to be found. Based on the species’ original descriptions and figures we can not see differences between  Brookula decussata( Pelseneer, 1903)and  B. pfefferi Powell, 1951, and consider the latter merely a junior synonym of the former. It is important to point out that  Brookula decussata( Pelseneer, 1903)does not “clearly differ from  Benthobrookula pfefferiin having a smaller shell, with fewer, more separated, spiral threads” ( Zelaya et al.2006, p. 80) but is instead really similar (see also Powell 1951, p. 104). A direct comparision of Pelseneer’s illustration (1903, pl. 5, fig. 48) with the photo of the holotypeof  Brookula pfefferi Powell, 1951, available from Zelaya et al.(2006, fig. 5A), does not only show the close similarity but also give the impression that the spiral threads are not “more separated”. In addition, while Zelaya et al.(2006)gave a maximum size of 1.83 mmfor  Brookula pfefferi Powell, 1951( 2 mmin the original description!), the maximum shell size for  B. decussata( Pelseneer, 1903)is originally given as 2.5 mmand can thus under no circumstances be defined as “smaller”.