Content uploaded by Heros Virginie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heros Virginie on Jul 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
245
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
© Publications scientiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. www.zoosystema.com
Published on 24 June 2016
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1B3D1C48-C90C-4C96-8BC5-14DEC4F01308
Cowie R. H., Héros V., Yeung N. W. & Hayes K. A. 2016. — Annotated catalogue of types of Hawaiian land and fresh-
water snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, with lectotype designations.
Zoosystema 38 (2): 245-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/z2016n2a4
ABSTRACT
Pacic island land snail faunas are among the most threatened faunas in the world, having suered
a higher rate of extinction than any other major animal group. e Hawaiian land snails are among
the most species rich and most severely impacted of these faunas, yet the current status of most of
the Hawaiian species is unknown. Most of the major taxonomic studies on the fauna were under-
Robert H. COWIE
Pacic Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii,
3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 408, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (USA)
cowie@hawaii.edu
Virginie HÉROS
Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité,
UMR 7205 CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE,
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités,
case postale 50, 57 rue Cuvier, F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France)
malaco@mnhn.fr
Norine W. YEUNG
Bernice P. Bishop Museum,
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 (USA)
and, Pacic Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii,
3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 408, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (USA)
and, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 (USA)
nyeung@hawaii.edu
Kenneth A. HAYES
Department of Biology, Howard University,
415 College Street NW, EE 332, Washington, DC 20059 (USA)
and, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 (USA)
kenneth.hayes@howard.edu
Annotated catalogue of types of Hawaiian land and
freshwater snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the Muséum
national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, with lectotype
designations
246 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
taken 50-100 years ago and only certain groups were comprehensively revised. New research is un-
covering undescribed species, both extant and extinct. e need for rigorous taxonomic treatment
of the group is acute if the validity and conservation status of the many species is to be ascertained,
and the basis for such research is comprehensive study of type material. e Muséum national
d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, holds type material of 38nominal species-group taxa of Hawaiian land
and freshwater snails belonging to six families, overwhelmingly the Achatinellidae Gulick, 1873 and
Amastridae Pilsbry, 1910; this annotated catalogue provides details of this material. We designate
lectotypes for 17species-group taxa. Name-bearing types (holotypes, lectotypes and representative
syntypes) are illustrated.
RÉSUMÉ
Catalogue annoté des types de gastéropodes terrestres et d’eau douce d’Hawaï (Mollusca: Gastropoda) du
Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, avec désignations de lectotypes.
Les faunes de mollusques terrestres des îles du Pacique sont parmi les plus menacées au monde,
ayant déjà subi un taux d’extinction plus fort que n’importe quel autre groupe zoologique. Parmi
elles, les gastéropodes terrestres d’Hawaï sont les plus riches en espèces et les plus gravement touchés ;
pourtant le véritable statut de ces espèces est encore mal connu. La plupart des études taxonomiques
sur cette faune ont été publiées il y a 50 à 100 ans et seuls quelques groupes sont correctement
traités. De nouvelles recherches de terrain ont permis la découverte de nouvelles espèces, aussi
bien actuelles qu’éteintes. La révision taxonomique rigoureuse de ce groupe est une nécessité pour
déterminer le statut de conservation de nombreuses espèces. La base de cette recherche est l’étude
exhaustive du matériel type. Le Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, possède le matériel
type de 38taxa nominaux du groupe espèce de gastéropodes terrestres et d’eau douce d’Hawaï,
appartenant à six familles, dont principalement des Achatinellidae Gulick, 1873 et Amastridae
Pilsbry, 1910; le présent catalogue annoté fournit les détails de ce matériel. Nous désignons des
lectotypes pour 17taxons du groupe espèce. Les types porte-nom (holotypes, lectotypes et syn-
types représentatifs) sont illustrés.
MOTS CLÉS
Achatinellidae,
Amastridae,
types,
Hawaï,
lectotypication.
KEY WORDS
Achatinellidae,
Amastridae,
types,
Hawaii,
lectotypication.
INTRODUCTION
Habitat destruction and the impacts of invasive species are
the primary causes of biodiversity loss and species extinc-
tion across many taxa, particularly on Pacic Islands (Cox&
Elmqvist 2000; Lydeard etal. 2004; Duncan etal. 2013).
e incredibly diverse assemblages of land snails on these
islands have been particularly heavily impacted, with many
species already extinct and the remaining fauna disappear-
ing rapidly (Lydeard etal. 2004; Régnier etal. 2009, 2015a,
b; Richling& Bouchet 2013; Sartori etal. 2014). Among
the Pacic Islands, the most species rich land snail fauna is
that of the Hawaiian Islands, with more than750 described
species, over99% of them endemic to the archipelago and
many to single islands (Cowie etal. 1995). It has been sug-
gested that up to90% of these species may already be ex-
tinct (Lydeard etal. 2004), although the level diers among
taxonomic groups (Régnier etal. 2015a; Hayes, Yeung&
Cowie unpublished).
e current biodiversity crisis, exemplied by this fauna,
emphasizes the urgent need for taxonomic research to describe
such faunas before they vanish unknown (Solem1990; Hop-
kins& Freckleton2002; Rodman& Cody2003; Wheeler2004;
Hawksworth& Cowie2013). e major published research
on Hawaiian land snail taxonomy was undertaken more than
50years ago (e.g., Neal 1934; Baker 1940; Cooke& Kondo
1961) and in some cases a century ago (e.g., Hyatt& Pilsbry
1910-1911; Pilsbry& Cooke 1912-1914). It is therefore dif-
cult to assess the number of species still extant, especially
as some groups have yet to be studied in detail (e.g., Endo-
dontidae Pilsbry, 1895 and Punctidae Morse, 1864; Solem
1976, 1983), and because modern molecular and microscopy
techniques (e.g., SEM) are discovering numerous undescribed
and sometimes cryptic species, both extinct and extant (Hayes,
Yeung& Cowie, unpublished). is lack of taxonomic clar-
ity and dearth of recent published studies of Hawaiian land
snail systematics hinders attempts to assess their conservation
status accurately.
To begin conserving any fauna, a comprehensive assess-
ment of the available type material information must be
completed to provide the initial framework for the neces-
sary systematic revisions. Natural history museum collec-
tions play a vital role in the study of biodiversity and its
loss by providing an indispensable resource of historical
and current biological records (Davis1996; Ponder etal.
2001; Suarez& Tsutsui2004). Hawaiian land snail type
specimens have been deposited in several major museum
collections including that of the Muséum national d’Histoire
naturelle (MNHN), Paris. e primary objective of this
catalogue is to document this material, as one of a series
of catalogues of museum types representing this highly
threatened fauna.
247
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
MATERIAL AND METHODS
ArrAngement And treAtment of tAxA
is catalogue is a work of nomenclature and clarication of
the status of type material; it is not a work of taxonomy and
we have avoided making any new taxonomic judgements.
All interpretations follow the International Code of Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature (ICZN1999), hereafter, the Code. Primary
types (i.e. holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes; there are no neo-
types) and secondary types (i.e. paralectotypes; there are no
paratypes) are included in this catalogue.
e list is arranged alphabetically by family. Within each
family, taxa are arranged alphabetically by species-group
name. e heading of each entry consists of the name,
author(s) and date of description, followed by the original
generic combination and species if an infra-specic taxon.
e next line of the entry consists of the name as given
with the original genus (and species for the one taxon
described as a variety) in which it was described, as pub-
lished by the author, including subgenus if in the original
description, with the original orthography even if now
considered incorrect according to the Code (ICZN1999)
(e.g.,diacritical marks, ligatures, incorrect gender endings,
species names beginning with a capital), except that genus
and species names are in italic even if printed otherwise
in the original publication, and with the original status
indicated, i.e. “var.” in one case. e name is followed by
its author(s), date of publication, page number and plate/
gure number(s). Other works by the same or dierent
authors that bear directly on the original description or are
of related interest (e.g., the rst illustrations of the species
or of type material) follow on subsequent lines, with the
name as published in the work(s). In some instances Férussac
(1821) introduced a name as a nomen nudum prior to mak-
ing it available (Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard 1825); this is
also indicated in this section. Next the current taxonomic
status, as in Cowie etal. (1995), is given and includes ge-
neric and subgeneric placement, whether a valid taxon, and
if not, the appropriate synonymy (as noted above, no new
taxonomic judgements have been made; this information
is simply provided for information). is is followed by a
listing of MNHN type material with MNHN catalogue
number(s), and with the number of specimens in each lot
indicated; all specimens are dry shells. e verbatim type
locality is then given within quotation marks and with the
original orthography, either as in the original description or
as restricted by designation of a lectotype. is is followed
by additional type locality information (e.g., from labels
or subsequent publications, translations or as claried or
corrected by reference to other sources such as the known
range of the taxon (ICZN 1999, Recommendation76A) in
parentheses. Information on type material at other institu-
tions (minimally as appropriate), corrections, additional
information, interpretations of type status and so on are
included in a remarks section. In remarks sections, species-
group taxa are referred to in the generic combination of
their original description.
Only primary types (holotypes, lectotypes and representa-
tive syntypes; there are no neotypes) are illustrated. Dimen-
sions given in the gure legends are shell height (length) in
mm, measured parallel to the columella using a dial calliper
or using a scale under the microscope, and in two cases of
more discoidal shells, shell width is given, measured similarly,
perpendicular to the columella. Reproductions of illustrations
from the original descriptions, from illustrations cited in the
original descriptions or from subsequent illustrations of type
material are also provided if available.
Lectotypes
Of the 38species group taxa of which type or possible type
material is listed in this catalogue, the majority (20) were
described originally by W.Harper Pease in three publications
in the Journal de Conchyliologie (Pease 1868, 1869, 1870).
Illustrations were provided only in the 1868 publication.
e remaining species were described by Férussac (1821)
and Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825) (11species), Ancey
(1904a, b) (4), Souleyet (1852) (2) and Baldwin (1895) (1).
In only one case, Helix luteola Férussac, 1825, was a holotype
xed (ICZN 1999, art. 73.1).
Crosse (1876: 95-99, pls 4-5 [in part]) illustrated the eight
species of Leptachatina and Amastra described by Pease (1870)
from specimens provided by Pease, treating the shells gured
as “types gurés”. However, this collective statement does not
constitute lectotype designations for the eight species illustrated,
as designations must be individual (ICZN 1999, art. 74.3).
Fischer-Piette (1950) listed type material in the collections
of the Journal de Conchyliologie, at the MNHN, but included
only the species of Pease and not of Ancey. In general, these
specimens are those on which original descriptions pub-
lished in the Journal were based, i.e. type material, although
additional type specimens may also have been deposited
elsewhere. Fischer-Piette (1950: 9) acknowledged that the
collection is far from comprehensive, as many species de-
scribed in the Journal are not represented in the collection.
Fischer-Piette (1950: 10) explained his use of the term
“holotype” as referring to the “Exemplaire unique, ou qui
est le principal objet de la description” (unique example,
or that which is the main object of the description). is
is not a rigorous use of the term as dened by the current
Code glossary (ICZN1999), and it admits the possibility
that there could be additional syntypes (ICZN 1999, art.
74.6); nor does it comply with the exception of the use of
“holotype” (ICZN 1999, art.74.5), as he was not explicitly
selecting a specimen from the syntype series to serve as the
name-bearing type. While it may often have been the case
that the description was based on only a single specimen,
unless that was unambiguously known, use of the term
“holotype” is an inference of such and is regulated by the
ICZN (1999, art. 74.6). Under this article of the Code, such
an inference can only be a lectotype xation, and then only
under certain conditions. In most cases Fischer-Piette’s in-
ference of “holotype” does not constitute lectotype xation
under a rigid interpretation of this article. In other cases he
used the term “Exemplaire-type”, although he did not explain
248 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
his use of this term, which could be construed as meaning
the type specimen, an exemplary specimen from the type
series or a typical specimen. In such circumstances, however,
especially when he also listed “paratypes”, it seems that he
was deliberately selecting the “Exemplaire-type” to act as the
unique name-bearing type, as regulated by the Code, while
avoiding the problematic use of the term “holotype” (ICZN
1999, art. 74.5); we consider these instances as constituting
lectotype designations. He also used the term “Exemplaire
guré”, which is here considered to not be explicitly select-
ing a particular specimen to act as the name-bearing type,
but simply referring to the “example gured”, usually in the
original description.
Johnson (1994) listed type material of all species described
by Pease, including those listed in this catalogue. He explici-
tly and validly designated lectotypes for a number of taxa
including one Hawaiian non-marine species (Amastra similaris
Pease, 1870; lectotype and paralectotypes in the MCZ) but for
the most part, he simply referenced the list of Fischer-Piette
(1950), accepting the latter’s identication of specimens as
“holotypes” but also treating specimens listed by Fischer-
Piette as “Exemplaire type” and even “Exemplaire guré” as
holotypes. In no case did Johnson, when wrongly using the
term “holotype”, explicitly indicate that he was selecting from
the type series that particular specimen to serve as the name-
bearing type (ICZN 1999, art.74.5), and furthermore he
used the term lectotype correctly (and therefore understood
the concept) in a number of instances; thus none of his list-
ings of MNHN specimens of Hawaiian non-marine species
constitutes a lectotype designation.
is paper is part of an ongoing eort to update the systema-
tics of the Hawaiian land snails and appropriate designation
of lectotypes is part of this overarching program of research
(see Rec.74G; ICZN 19992003). However, we have been
circumspect and not designated lectotypes in situations in
which it is possible that other more appropriate specimens
may be present in other collections. We designate lectotypes
primarily for species described in the Journal de Conchyliologie,
as the collections of the Journal are held in the MNHN and
it seems reasonable to select specimens from those associated
with the journal in which the species were described.
Helicteres And Helicter As used by peAse
e name “Helicteres” was rst proposed by Férussac (1821:
60) but is unavailable from that work because it was written
in the nominative plural (Cowie& Evenhuis2001: 188). e
rst author to make Helicteres available was Beck (1837:51).
e name Helicter, introduced by Pease (1862: 6), is an un-
justied emendation of Helicteres (Cowie& Evenhuis2001:
188-189).
Many of the species in this catalogue were described by Pease
(1868, 1869, 1870). Interpreting the original combinations
of these species has in some cases proven dicult. Here, we
explain our interpretations and explain how we list them in
the catalogue.
Pease (1868), in the rst sentence of his article stated that
Auriculella Pfeier, 1855 constituted a subgenus of Helicteres
Beck, 1837. However, he went on to say that because they were
so dierent from the other subdivisions of Helicteres and had
been placed by other authors in ve dierent genera, they had
a legitimate right to be considered as constituting a separate
genus. We therefore consider that the species of Auriculella
described by Pease (1868) were originally described in the
genus Auriculella and not in Helicteres.
Pease (1869) described a number of species of the genus
Helicter listed in this catalogue in the “Sectio” and “subdivi-
sion” Leptachatina Gould, 1847, the “Sectio” Amastra Adams&
Adams, 1855, the “Sectio” Laminella Pfeier, 1854 and the
“Sectio” Partulina Pfeier, 1854. In a subsequent publica-
tion Pease (1870) described a number of species in the group
“Hélictères”, which we here treat as the genus Helicteres. Pease
(1870) placed his species in Leptachatina or Amastra. He ex-
plicitly referred to Leptachatina as a subgenus, even though, as
in the earlier publication (Pease1869), the headings for each
species give the species name in combination only with “L.”
(e.g., L.antiqua). He did not explicitly refer to Amastra as a
subgenus; however, his treatment of Amastra was equivalent
to his treatment of Leptachatina.
us, in this catalogue for each species placed in “Hélictères”
by Pease (1870), on the line below the heading, which gives
the original combination followed by the citation, the name
Helicteres is placed in square brackets as having not been in
the original publication. For all these species of both Pease
(1869) and Pease (1870) we treat them as having been
placed in Leptachatina, Laminella or Amastra as subgenera
of Helicteres.
Authorship of species in Quoy & gAimArd (1825)
Although in the “Préface” to their work (un-numbered
p.3) Quoy& Gaimard (1825) thanked Férussac for the
nomenclature of the terrestrial molluscs, in the introduction
to the terrestrial and freshwater mollusc section they stated
(p.463-464) “Nous devons à M.de Férussac la description
des espèces que nous avons rapportées, dont il a fait gurer
plusieurs dans son magnique ouvrage sur les mollusques
terrestres et uviatiles”. Férussac is therefore the author of all
the species listed in this catalogue as described in Quoy&
Gaimard (1825).
AbbreviAtions And Acronyms
art. Article of the International Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature ;
spm(s) specimen(s).
Institutions
ANSP Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University,
Philadelphia;
BPBM Bernice P.Bishop Museum, Honolulu;
MCZ Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
Cambridge;
MNHN Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris;
NMW National Museum of Wales, Cardi;
IRSNB Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique,
Brussels.
249
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
SYSTEMATIC CATALOGUE
Family AchAtineLLidAe Gulick, 1873
cincta Ancey, 1904, Tornatellina
(Fig.1A)
Tornatellina cincta Ancey, 1904a: 297, pl.12, gs5, 6.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Tornatellidinae Cooke & Kondo,
1961, Tornatellaria Pilsbry, 1910. Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Syntype MNHN IM-2000-20012 (1spm).
t
ype
LocALity
.—“Makawao (partie Est de Maui); Oahu; Molokai;
Hawaii; vallée d’Iao, Maui; Kaupakalua, Maui”.
AB
C
D
EF
Fig. 1. — Achatinellidae Gulick, 1873: A, Tornatellina cincta Ancey, 1904, syntype MNHN IM-2000-20012, 3.8 mm, g. 5 of Ancey (1904a); B, Helicter compta
Pease, 1869, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30805, 24.7 mm; C, Helix decora Férussac, 1821, possible syntype MNHN IM-2000-30806,18.0 mm, g. 3015 of Chem-
nitz (1795); D, Auriculella expansa Pease, 1868, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30807, 6.4 mm, g. 8 of Pease (1868); E, Helix lorata Férussac, 1825, lectotype MNHN
IM-2000-30808, 14.2 mm, g. 8 of Férussac in Quoy & Gaimard (1825); F, Helix lugubris Férussac, 1821, possible syntype MNHN IM-2000-30810, 17.2 mm,
g. 2062 of Chemnitz (1795). Scale bars: A, D, 1 mm; B, C, E, F, 10 mm. Dimensions given are shell height; reproductions of original illustrations not to scale.
250 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
remArks
e MNHN specimen is from Kaupakalua, according to the
labels associated with the specimen (variously spelled). One
label also identies it as a “Cotype”. Cooke (in Pilsbry&
Cooke 1916 [in 1914-1916]: 263, pl.55, g. 1) “selected
the Makawao lot (no.18500Bishop Mus.) as the type (p.55,
g.1)” and illustrated one of the specimens from this lot.
However, because this lot contains more than one specimen
and the gure legend does not identify the shell gured as the
“type”, this selection cannot be considered a lectotype designa-
tion, even if that was Cooke’s intent. BPBM41252 has been
separated from BPBM18500 and is labelled as a lectotype, but
this designation has never been published (see also Wood&
Gallichan2008: 35, 36). e species was not listed by Fischer-
Piette (1950: 170-171). Ancey’s illustrations are not detailed
enough to identify the MNHN specimen as that gured. No
lectotype is here selected, pending further research in other
museums (BPBM, MCZ, NMW, IRSNB) holding type or
possible type material (Wood& Gallichan 2008: 35).
compta Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig. 1B)
Helicter (Partulina) compta Pease, 1869: 175.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Achatinellinae, Partulina (Partu-
lina) dwightii (Newcomb, 1855). Valid subspecies.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Lectotype (Fischer-Piette1950: 73, pl.4, g.54)
MNHN IM-2000-30805.
type LocALity.—“Molokai”.
remArks
e original description was based on more than one speci-
men: “une bande blanchâtre […] qui est habituellement
[usually] bordée […] par une ligne d’un brun rougeâtre”
and “Elle […] présente souvent [often] […] une angulation
particulière”; and specimens were noted as being in the col-
lections of both Pease and Crosse. A single specimen was
noted as “Exemplaire-type” and illustrated by Fischer-Piette
(1950: 73, 180, pl.4, g.54). is usage is here treated as a
lectotype designation (see introductory text regarding lecto-
types). e specimen is the single specimen in MNHN IM-
2000-30805, and a label of the collection of the Journal de
Conchyliologie, associated with this specimen and written at
the time of Fischer-Piette, says “type”, as does an earlier label,
and another states that it is the specimen gured. Johnson
(1994: 9) listed this specimen as the “Holotype”, while also
listing “paratypes” (MCZ25826, 25828).
decora Férussac, 1821, Helix
(Fig.1C)
Helix (Cochlogena) decora Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56.
Turbo lugubris sinistrorsus Chemnitz, 1795: pl.213, gs3014, 3015
[unavailable name].
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Achatinellinae, Achatinella Swain-
son, 1828 (Achatinella). Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Possible syntypes MNHN IM-2000-30806
(4spms, Fig.1C).
type LocALity.—“Les îles Sandwich” (Oahu, Hawaiian Islands,
as the genus is endemic to Oahu).
remArks
e name decora is available by indication (ICZN 1999, art.
12.2.7) as Férussac provided bibliographic reference to illus-
trations (apertural and abapertural views of a sinistral shell)
of Turbo lugubris sinistrorsus (unavailable name) by Chemnitz
(1795: pl.213, gs3014, 3015), whose work was rejected
for nomenclatural purposes as it did not consistently apply
binominal nomenclature (Opinion 184; Direction 1; ICZN
1999, art.11.4, 11.5). No other specimens were mentioned.
e specimen was from Spengler (“Ex Museo Spengleriano”),
bought by Spengler in London (Chemnitz1795: 307). Pils-
bry& Cooke (1914 [in1912-1914]: 333) stated that “e
type of A.decora in the Spengler collection was probably
brought to London by the expedition of Captain Dixon”; and
based on extensive material they considered the species to be
sinistral. Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825: 478) stated
that his material, which derived from the Freycinet expedition,
diered from Spengler’s specimen in its colour and banding.
Whether Férussac had the present four MNHN specimens
(one of them is dextral) at hand when he listed the species
in1821 is not known (there are no Férussac collection labels
with the specimens); nor is it known for sure whether the
MNHN specimens are those from the Freycinet expedition.
ey are indeed very dierent in shell colour and banding
from Spengler’s specimen (Fig.1C). However, the collection
labels do indicate that the specimens were in the Deshayes
(and therefore possibly Férussac) collection. e species was
treated and illustrated by Deshayes (1851: 191, 192, pl.155,
gs5-7), but the specimens do not closely match his illustra-
tions. ey are here considered only to be possible syntypes.
expansa Pease, 1868, Auriculella
(Fig.1D)
Auriculella expansa Pease, 1868: 343, pl.14, g.8.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Auriculellinae Odhner, 1921,
Auriculella Peier, 1855. Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30807.
type LocALity.—“îles Hawaï” (from article title).
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on more than
one specimen: “habituellement sénestre, rarement dextre”;
“Coloration générale blanchâtre, ou d’un jaune de paille
clair”; and “quelques exemplaires”. However, Fischer-Piette
(1950: 71, pl.14, g.8) listed and gured a single specimen
251
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
as the “Holotype”. Johnson (1994: 12) referred to Fischer-
Piette (1950: 71) as having identied the “Holotype” but also
noted “paratypes” (MCZ45155). Neither listing constitutes
a lectotype designation (see introductory text regarding lec-
totypes). e illustrations of Pease are not detailed but both
Pease and Fischer-Piette gave the shell’s size as 6mm, which is
very close to the actual dimension of the specimen in MNHN
IM-2000-30807. A label of the collection of the Journal de
Conchyliologie, associated with this specimen and written at
the time of Fischer-Piette, says “Holotype”, and this and two
other labels state that it is the specimen gured. It is therefore
here designated as the lectotype.
lorata Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.1E)
Helix lorata Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 479, pl.68, gs8-12.
Helix (Cochlogena) lorata Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56 [nomen
nudum].
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Achatinellinae, Achatinella
(Achatinella). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30808; paralectotype: MNHN IM-2000-30809 (1spm).
non-type mAteriAL.—MNHN IM-2000-37356 (4spms).
type LocALity.—“les îles Sandwich”.
remArks
e text of Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825: 479, 480)
refers to pl.65, in error (on p.479), as well as to pl.68, which
is the correct plate (on p.480). MNHN IM-2000-30808
closely matches Férussac’s g.12 and has been considered
to be the gured specimen, according to the label, and the
original lot from which it was separated. MNHN IM-2000-
30809 has a typical black-bordered Férussac collection label
associated with it and is similar to his gs8 and9, although it
is perhaps not the gured specimen. e species is extremely
variable in the amount of banding on the shell, but Pilsbry&
Cooke (1914 [in1912-1914]: 279) took Férussac’s gs10
and11 to represent the “typical pattern”. In the absence of
specimens of this typical pattern we here designate MNHN
IM-2000-30808 as the lectotype; MNHN IM-20000-30809
is a paralectotype. e species was treated and illustrated by
Deshayes (1851: 193, 194, pl.155, gs9-11).
e main modern label of MNHN IM-2012-37356 iden-
ties the specimens as syntypes of Helix lorata. However,
the older labels, both dated 1837 (after Férussac’s death),
identify them as Achatinella producta Reeve, 1850, though
one of them also says “Helix (Helicteres) lorata var.?” and has
an additional label stuck to it also saying “lorata var.?”. e
modern identication of this lot as H.lorata is considered
incorrect as the specimens match the original illustration of
A.producta of Reeve (1850 [in1849-1851]: pl.2, g.13)
quite closely, although they are slightly broader; they also
match the illustrations of A.producta of Pilsbry& Cooke
(1914: pl.38, gs7-13, pl.43, gs10-10b), especially their
pl.38, g.9. Reeve’s material was from the Cuming collection
and described in1850, whereas the MNHN labels indicate
that the material was in Férussac’s collection, and with the
date1837. ere is no earlier label suggesting that Férussac
considered these specimens to be H lorata. We therefore do
not consider these specimens to be type material of either
H.lorata Férussac or of A.producta Reeve. ey are discussed
here simply to preclude confusion regarding their type status.
lugubris Férussac, 1821, Helix
(Fig.1F)
Helix (Cochlogena) lugubris Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56.
Turbo apex fulva [sic] Dixon, 1789: 354, g.1.
Turbo lugubris Chemnitz, 1795: pl.209, gs2059, 2060 [unavail-
able name].
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Achatinellinae, Achatinella
(Achatinella) apexfulva (Dixon, 1789), synonym.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Possible syntypes MNHN IM-2000-30811
(4spms), MNHN IM2000-30810 (2spms, Fig.1F).
type LocALity.—“Les îles Sandwich” (Oahu, Hawaiian Islands,
as the genus is endemic to Oahu).
remArks
e name lugubris is available from Férussac (1821a: 60) by
indication (ICZN 1999, art.12.2.7) as Férussac provided
bibliographic references to illustrations (apertural and abap-
ertural views of a sinistral shell) of Turbo lugubris (unavail-
able) by Chemnitz (1795: pl.209, gs2059, 2060) and to
an illustration of “Turbo apex fulva” by Dixon (1789: 354,
g.1). e two specimens illustrated are therefore syntypes.
No other specimens were mentioned. Férussac in Quoy&
Gaimard (1825: 479) provided a description but no illustra-
tions. e specimen illustrated by Chemnitz was from Spengler
(“Ex Museo Spengleriano”), who had obtained it in London
(Chemnitz1795: 278) and it may have been derived from
Dixon’s material (Pilsbry& Cooke1914 [in1912-1914]: 321).
e two specimens in MNHN IM-2000-30810 have holes
in them that indicate that they were used to make necklaces
or other ornamentation, as described by Dixon (1789: 354)
and Chemnitz (1795: 278) but not noted by the Freycinet
expedition (Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard 1825: 479), sug-
gesting that the MNHN specimens may also have been part
of Dixon’s material, which was from a necklace. A typical
black-bordered Férussac collection label is associated with
them. e four specimens in MNHN IM-2000-30811 do
not have holes, but a label associated with them says “Coll.Fé-
russac 1837” (Férussac died in1836, Coan& Kabat 2014:
331), the date perhaps referring to when the catalogue of
Férussac’s collection was being put together (Tomlin 1944:
71); the specimens may well therefore have been from the
Freycinet expedition. Whether Férussac had any of these six
specimens in hand when he wrote the original description
252 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
is not known. All six specimens are considered here as pos-
sible syntypes only. e species was treated and illustrated by
Deshayes (1851: 194-195, pl.155, g.8), but the MNHN
specimens do not closely match his illustrations.
macromphala Ancey, 1904, Tornatellina
(Fig.2A)
Tornatellina macromphala Ancey, 1904a: 296, pl.12, gs3, 4.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Tornatellidinae, Tornatellides
Pilsbry, 1910 (Tornatellides). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Syntype MNHN IM-2000-20013 (1spm).
t
ype
LocALity
.—“Kaupakalua, Maui, Keanae, également dans
l’île de Maui : Tantalus, près Honolulu, Oahu”.
remArks
e original description was based on more than one speci-
men, as it listed multiple localities and mentioned both
adults and young individuals. e species was not listed by
Fischer-Piette (1950: 170, 171). e gures of Ancey (1904)
are not detailed but are a reasonable match to the single
specimen in MNHN IM-2000-20013, but no lectotype is
here designated, pending further research in other museums
(BPBM, MCZ, NMW, IRSNB) holding type or possible
type material (Wood& Gallichan 2008: 61, 62). One label
says “Ancey 1907”, which suggests the specimen may have
been received from Ancey by MNHN after publication of
the description.
pulchra Pease, 1868, Auriculella
(Fig.2B)
Auriculella pulchra Pease, 1868: 346, pl.14, g.6.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Auriculellinae, Auriculella. Valid
species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30813 (Fig.2B); paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-31702 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“îles Hawaï” (from article title).
remArks
e original description was based on more than one specimen:
“toujours dextre”, and a distinct variety was noted. Fischer-
Piette (1950: 71) listed but did not gure the “Holotype,
10mm” and noted four other specimens (not referred to as
paratypes) of the same size, without explicitly selecting one
specimen as the “holotype”. Johnson (1994: 21) referred to
Fischer-Piette’s listing, noting the “Holotype” and the ad-
ditional four specimens as “paratypes”, and listed additional
paratypes (MCZ161609). Neither case constitutes a lecto-
type designation (see introductory text regarding lectotypes).
Pease’s illustrations are not detailed and the shells are coloured
uniformly yellowish with a white aperture, corresponding to
the “variété jaunâtre” (Pease1868: 347), whereas the main
description states that the shells are white with a transverse
greenish band and a brownish lip.Pilsbry& Cooke (1915
[in1914-1916]: 84) discussed this apparent conict in the
context of Pease’s collection at the MCZ and specimens pre-
sented to ANSP. Two of the MNHN shells correspond to
the main description (perhaps somewhat faded), while three
seem to be the “variété jaunâtre”. A label of the collection
of the Journal de Conchyliologie, associated with the original
lot and written at the time of Fischer-Piette, says “Holotype
+ 4sp.”, the former presumably being the one in a separate
vial (MNHN IM-2000-30812), which matches the gure
of Pease (1868: pl.14, g.6). However, the reference to a
distinct variety excluded the specimens corresponding to the
“variété jaunâtre” (the three specimens indicated above) from
the type series of pulchra (ICZN 1999, art. 72.4.1), these be-
ing MNHN IM-2000-30812 (Fischer-Piette’s “Holotype”)
and MNHN IM-2000-31703 (the other two specimens) and
having no type status. We here designate the undamaged of
the two specimens that correspond to the main description
as the lectotype; the other specimen (with a damaged lip) is
a paralectotype.
uniplicata Pease, 1868, Auriculella
(Fig.2C)
Auriculella uniplicata Pease, 1868: 344, pl.14, gs7, 7a.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Auriculellinae, Auriculella. Valid
species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30814; paralectotypes MNHN IM-2000-30815 (2spms).
type LocALity.—“In insula Maui”.
remArks
e original description was based on more than one speci-
men, as two specimens were illustrated and the colour was
described as being yellow or brown and the shells as indif-
ferently dextral or sinistral. Fischer-Piette (1950: 71) noted
the two specimens gured as being in the collection of the
Journal de Conchyliologie but did not refer to either as type
material. Johnson (1994: 27) simply referenced Fischer-
Piette’s statement, treating the two gured specimens as syn-
types, while also noting additional syntypes (MCZ159563,
MCZ161636). e original MNHN lot consisted of two
intact specimens (a third specimen was represented only by
a broken apertural fragment). e two intact specimens, al-
though paler in colour (perhaps faded), match the original
illustrations well, one with a brown band (Pease1868: pl.14,
g.7) and one without (g.7a), and a label of the collection
of the Journal de Conchyliologie, associated with the original
lot and written at the time of Fischer-Piette, indicates that
they are the specimens gured by Pease. e sinistral speci-
men with the brown band, as described by Pease (1868: 345),
is here separated from the original lot and designated as the
lectotype; the other illustrated specimen and the fragment
are paralectotypes.
253
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
vulpina Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.2D)
Helix vulpina Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 477, pl.68,
gs13, 14.
Helix (Cochlogena) vulpina Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56 [nomen
nudum].
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Achatinellinae, Achatinella
(Achatinellastrum Pfeier, 1854). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Syntype MNHN IM-2000-30816 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“les îles Sandwich” (Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, as
the genus is endemic to Oahu).
remArks
MNHN IM-2000-30816, though similar, does not match
either of the shells illustrated by Quoy& Gaimard (1825:
pl.68, gs13, 14), being paler and more uniform in colour
and diering subtly in shape. Labels associated with the speci-
men, including a black-bordered one typical of the Férussac
collection, nonetheless indicate that it was part of the Férus-
sac collection and it is therefore here considered a syntype.
e species was treated and illustrated by Deshayes (1851:
193, pl.155, gs1, 2) and the shell is a close match in size
and shape for that in his g.2, but is considerably smaller
than that in his g.1.
Family AmAstridAe Pilsbry, 1910
antiqua Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.3A)
[Helicteres] (Leptachatina) antiqua Pease, 1870: 94.
Achatinella (Leptachatina) antiqua – Crosse1876: 97, 98, pl.3, g.6.
A
DC
B
Fig. 2. — Achatinellidae Gulick, 1873: A, Tornatellina macromphala Ancey, 1904, syntype MNHN IM-2000-20013, 2.6 mm, g. 3 of Ancey (1904a); B, Auriculella
pulchra Pease, 1868, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30813, 9.5 mm; C, Auriculella uniplicata Pease, 1868, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30814, 7.3 mm, g. 7 of Pease
(1868); D, Helix vulpina Férussac, 1825, possible syntype MNHN IM-2000-30816, 18.0 mm, g. 13 of Férussac in Quoy & Gaimard (1825). Scale bars: A-C, 1 mm;
D, 10 mm. Dimensions given are shell height; reproductions of original illustrations not to scale.
254 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae Cockerell, 1913;
Leptachatina Gould, 1847 (Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30817.
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (from article title).
remArks
is species was described by Pease as a species of “Hélictères”
(i.e. genus Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not
used and it is therefore placed in square brackets above) in
the subgenus Leptachatina (see introductory text regarding
species of Pease). e original description was not explicitly
based on only a single specimen but neither does it imply the
existence of syntypes. Crosse (1876: pl.3, g.6) illustrated
a single specimen, presumably one of the two “exemplaires
typiques” [typical examples] in the collection of the Journal
de Conchyliologie (Crosse1876: 98). Fischer-Piette (1950:
149) listed the specimen illustrated by Crosse as an “Exem-
plaire guré”, also not treating it explicitly as a type. Johnson
(1994: 26) referenced Fischer-Piette’s statement but credited
him with having listed the “Holotype”; he did not mention
additional type specimens. Johnson’s treatment did not con-
stitute a lectotype xation (see introductory text regarding
lectotypes). Despite Crosse’s statement that there were two
specimens in the collection, there is now only one specimen
in this lot. e labels associated with this specimen indicate
that it is the specimen illustrated by Crosse (1876: pl.3, g.6)
and that it was received from Pease in1869; and although the
gures are not detailed and the shell is rather featureless and
broken into two fragments, it is nonetheless here designated
as the lectotype.
balteata Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.3B)
[Helicteres] (Leptachatina) balteata Pease, 1870: 91.
Achatinella (Leptachatina) balteata – Crosse1876: 97, pl.4, g.4.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30818.
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (from article title).
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not used and
it is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subge-
nus Leptachatina (see introductory text regarding species of
Pease). e original description was not explicitly based on
only a single specimen but neither does it imply the existence
of syntypes. Fischer-Piette (1950: 149) listed the specimen
illustrated by Crosse as “Exemplaire guré”, not treating it
explicitly as a type. Johnson (1994: 26) simply referenced
Fischer-Piette’s statement but credited him with having listed
the “Holotype”, while also noting additional “paratypes”
(MCZ142986). Johnson’s treatment did not constitute a
lectotype xation (see introductory text regarding lectotypes).
e single specimen is a reasonable match for that illustrated
by Crosse (1876:pl.4, g.4), although the white sutural bands
in that illustration appear quite exaggerated; the labels associ-
ated with the specimen state that it is the specimen illustrated
by Crosse and that it was received from Pease in1869. It is
therefore here designated as the lectotype.
brevicula Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig.3C)
Helicter (Leptachatina) brevicula Pease, 1869: 169.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Lectotype (Fischer-Piette1950: 72) MNHN
IM-2000-30819; paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-30820 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“Ins. Kauai”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens in
the collections of both Pease and Crosse, and noted that the
shells had a variable number of whorls (“cinq à six”). Cooke
(in Hyatt& Pilsbry 1910 [in1910-1911]: 24, pl.8, g.54)
illustrated a “Cotype” (ANSP57802). Fischer-Piette (1950:
72) listed an “Exemplaire-type” and a “paratype” (now MNHN
IM-2000-30819 and MNHN IM-2000-30820, respectively)
as well as the “paratype” of Cooke, which is here treated as
designation of a lectotype and paralectotypes (see introduc-
tory text regarding lectotypes). e two MNHN specimens
are 7.7mm (lectotype) and7.1mm (paralectotype) in height,
almost the exact measurements of the “Exemplaire-type” and
“paratype”, respectively, of Fischer-Piette. A label of the col-
lection of the Journal de Conchyliologie, associated with these
specimens and written at the time of Fischer-Piette, says “type
+ paratype”. Johnson (1994: 8) referenced Fischer-Piette’s
statement but credited him with having listed the “Measured
holotype and paratype”, and noted Cooke’s “paratype” as well
as additional “paratypes” (MCZ45195).
costulosa Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.3D)
[Helicteres] (Leptachatina) costulosa Pease, 1870: 90.
Achatinella (Leptachatina) costulosa – Crosse1876: 97, pl.3, g.4.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30821.
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (in article title).
255
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not used and
it is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subge-
nus Leptachatina (see introductory text regarding species of
Pease). e original description was implicitly based on mul-
tiple specimens: “Coloration jaunâtre et devenant habituelle-
ment pourprée près de la suture”. Fischer-Piette (1950: 149)
noted the illustration of Crosse and listed a “Holotype” (no
doubt the specimen illustrated by Crosse, though this was
AB C
D
E
F
G
H
F
ig
. 3. — Amastridae Pilsbry, 1910: A, Helicteres antiqua Pease, 1870, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30817, not measured; B, Helicteres balteata Pease, 1870,
lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30818, 11.8 mm; C, Helicter brevicula Pease, 1869, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30819, 7.7 mm; D, Helicteres costulosa Pease, 1870,
lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30821, 14.0 mm; E, Helicter cylindrata Pease, 1869, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30822, 8.2 mm; F, Helicter erecta Pease, 1869, lecto-
type MNHN IM-2000-30824, 14.6 mm; G, Helix gravida Férussac, 1825, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30825, 22.5 mm, g. 4 of Férussac in Quoy & Gaimard (1825);
H, Achatinella helvina Baldwin, 1895, possible syntype MNHN IM-2000-30133, 15.8 mm, g. 30 of Baldwin (1895). Scale bars: A-F, 1 mm; G, 10 mm; H, 5 mm.
Dimensions given are shell height; reproductions of original illustrations not to scale.
256 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
not stated explicitly). Johnson (1994: 10) simply referenced
Fischer-Piette’s statement, while also noting an additional
“paratype” (MCZ45191). Neither statement constitutes a
lectotype designation (see introductory text regarding lec
-
totypes). e single MNHN specimen matches Crosse’s il-
lustration reasonably well, and a label of the collection of the
Journal de Conchyliologie, associated with the specimen and
written at the time of Fischer-Piette, says “Holotype”, and
this and two other labels state that it is the gured specimen,
one indicating that it was received from Pease in1869. It is
here designated as the lectotype.
cylindrata Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig.3E)
Helicter (Leptachatina) cylindrata Pease, 1869: 168.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Lectotype (Fischer-Piette1950: 72) MNHN
IM-2000-30822; paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-30823 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“Ins. Kauai”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens in
the collections of both Pease and Crosse. A “cotype” in ANSP
was illustrated by Cooke (in Hyatt& Pilsbry1910 [in1910-
1911]: 19, pl.8, gs63, 64). Fischer-Piette (1950: 72) noted
an “Exemplaire-type (8.2mm)” and a “paratype de7mm”
(now MNHN IM-2000-30822 and MNHN IM-2000-30823,
respectively), and in reference to the ANSP “paratype” already
illustrated (by Cooke) stated that it would not be useful to il-
lustrate “le type” (i.e. the “exemplaire-type”). is constitutes
a valid lectotype designation (see introductory text regarding
lectotypes). A label of the collection of the Journal de Con-
chyliologie and written at the time of Fischer-Piette says “type
+ paratype”, and an earlier label says “type”. ere were two
intact specimens in the original MNHN lot (i.e. lectotype
and paralectotype), but also a broken specimen that was not
mentioned by Fischer-Piette; this specimen is also considered a
paralectotype. Johnson (1994: 11) selected the ANSP specimen
(ANSP57806) as lectotype, noting the MNHN specimens as
paralectotypes; this designation is not valid as it is here con-
sidered that the earlier designation of Fischer-Piette was valid.
erecta Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig.3F)
Helicter (Laminella) erecta Pease, 1869: 174.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Amastrinae Amastra (Paramastra)
micans (Pfeier, 1859), synonym.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Lectotype (Fischer-Piette1950: 73, pl.4, g.53)
MNHN IM-2000-30824.
type LocALity.—“Maui”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens
in the collections of both Pease and Crosse, as well as noting
that the shells were variously coloured (“d’un jaune paille,
rougeâtre clair ou brunâtre”). Fischer-Piette (1950: 73, pl.4,
g.53) noted and illustrated a measured “Exemplaire-type”,
thereby designating a lectotype, though not mentioning
other specimens (see introductory text regarding lectotypes).
A label associated with the specimen indicates that it was
received from Pease in1868. Johnson (1994: 26) referenced
Fischer-Piette’s statement but credited him with having listed
the “Holotype”, while also noting additional “paratypes”, i.e.
paralectotypes (MCZ23338).
gravida Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.3G)
Helix gravida Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 478, pl.68,
gs4, 5.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Amastrinae, Laminella Pfeier,
1854. Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30825; paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-30826 (1spm); possible
paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-30827 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“les îles Sandwich”.
remArks
e species was not listed by Férussac (1821a, b). A typi-
cal black bordered Férussac collection label is associated
with the original lot. e larger of the two specimens in the
original lot matches that illustrated by Férussac in Quoy&
Gaimard (1825, pl.68, gs4, 5) exactly in shell height and
is here designated as the lectotype (although the illustration
lacks the distinct repair scar on the body whorl); the other
specimen is a paralectotype. e species was treated and il-
lustrated by Deshayes (1851: 192, 193, pl.155, g.3). Labels
incorrectly give the locality as the Mariana Islands because
Laminella (and indeed the family Amastridae) is endemic
to the Hawaiian Islands. A label associated with MNHN
IM-2000-30827 says “Coll. Férussac. 1837”, indicating that
it was in the Férussac collection (the date perhaps referring
to when Férussac’s collection was catalogued after his death
in1836). is label also identies it as Achatinella straminea
Reeve, 1850 (in1849-1851: pl.5, g.38), and a “var” of
gravida, although Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825: 478)
did not mention a variety.
helvina Baldwin, 1895, Achatinella
(Fig.3H)
Achatinella (Laminella) helvina Baldwin, 1895: 227, pl.11, g.30.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Amastrinae, Laminella citrina
(Pfeier, 1848). Valid subspecies.
257
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Possible syntypes MNHN IM-2000-30133
(6spms; Fig.3H).
t
ype
LocALity
.—“Ohia valley, near Kaluaaha. Island of Molokai”.
remArks
e original description was based on multiple specimens.
One label shows that the shells were received from Baldwin.
Whether they are syntypes or just representative specimens
is not possible to ascertain at present.
laevis Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.4A)
[Helicteres] (Leptachatina) lævis [sic] Pease, 1870: 91.
Achatinella (Leptachatina) lævis [sic] – Crosse1876: 97, pl.4, g.6.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30828.
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (from article title).
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not used and
it is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subge-
nus Leptachatina (see introductory text regarding species of
Pease). e original description was not explicitly based on
only a single specimen but neither does it imply the existence
of syntypes. e species was illustrated by Crosse (1876: 97,
pl.4, g.6), who indicated that there were two “individus
typiques” in the collection of the Journal de Conchyliologie.
Fischer-Piette (1950: 149) noted the specimen illustrated by
Crosse and listed a measured “Holotype” (not explicitly the
specimen illustrated by Crosse). Johnson (1994: 16) simply
referenced Fischer-Piette’s statement, while also noting ad-
ditional “paratypes” (MCZ45173). Neither of these listings
constitutes a lectotype designation (see introductory text
regarding lectotypes). Despite Crosse’s statement that there
were two specimens in the collection, there is now only one
specimen in the MNHN lot. A label of the collection of the
Journal de Conchyliologie, associated with the specimen and
written at the time of Fischer-Piette, says “Holotype”, and
this and two other labels indicate that the specimen is that
illustrated by Crosse (1876: pl.4, g.6), one indicating that
it was received from Pease in1869. Although the gures are
not detailed, and the shell is rather featureless, the shell in
MNHN IM-2000-30828 is here designated as the lectotype.
luteola Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.4B)
Helix luteola Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 480.
Achatina luteola – Deshayes1851: 195, pl.155, g.12.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Amastrinae, Amastra. Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Holotype (monotypy) MNHN IM-2000-30829.
t
ype
LocALity
.—“probable qu’elle vient des îles Mariannes”
(probably came from the Mariana Islands; error, correctly the Ha-
waiian Islands).
remArks
Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825: 480) stated “Elle a été
trouvée par M.Gaudichaud. II est probable qu’elle vient
des îles Mariannes. Nous n’avons vu qu’un exemplaire”.
e holotype was thus xed by monotypy (ICZN 1999,
art. 73.1.2). e labels of MNHN IM-2000-30829, one of
which is a black-bordered label typical of the Férussac col-
lection, indicate that the single specimen was received from
“Gaudicho”, conrming that it was obtained by the Freycinet
expedition, as Gaudichaud served as botanist on the voy-
age. is Férussac label also gives the Iles Mariannes as the
locality. However, as an amastrid, a family endemic to the
Hawaiian Islands, it could not have come from the Mariana
Islands, and was no doubt obtained during the expedition’s
time in the Hawaiian Islands in1819 (Freycinet1839: 518).
e specimen closely matches that treated and illustrated by
Deshayes (1851: 195, pl.155, g.12). It is therefore con-
sidered here to be the holotype.
pachystoma Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig.4C)
Helicter (Labiella) pachystoma Pease, 1869: 171.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Lectotype (Fischer-Piette1950: 73, pl.4, g.52)
MNHN IM-2000-30830.
type LocALity.—“Ins. Kauai”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens in
the collections of both Pease and Crosse. Cooke (in Hyatt&
Pilsbry1910 [in1910-1911]: 50, 51, pl.8, gs47, 48) men-
tioned “specimens (probably the types)[…] belonging to Pease’s
own collection, which is now at the Museum of Comparative
Zoology”, and illustrated one of his own specimens. Fischer-
Piette (1950: 73, pl.4, g.52) noted Cooke’s illustrated
specimen and illustrated his own measured “Exemplaire-
type”, which is here treated as a valid lectotype designation
(see introductory text regarding lectotypes). A label of the
collection of the Journal de Conchyliologie, associated with
the specimen and written at the time of Fischer-Piette, says
“type”, and another label indicates that it is that illustrated
by Fischer-Piette (1950: pl.4, g.52), which indeed it is.
Johnson (1994: 198) referenced Fischer-Piette’s statement but
credited him with having listed the “Measured holotype”, and
noted additional “paratypes” (MCZ45181).
258 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
rugulosa Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.4D)
[Helicteres] (Amastra) rugulosa Pease, 1870: 95.
Achatinella (Amastra) rugulosa – Crosse 1876: 99, pl.1, gs4, 4a.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Amastrella
Sykes, 1900). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30831; paralectotype: MNHN IM-2000-30832 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (from article title).
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not used and it
is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subgenus
Amastra (see introductory text regarding species of Pease). e
original description was not explicitly based on only a single
specimen but neither does it imply the existence of syntypes.
e specimen illustrated by Crosse (1876: pl.1, g.4, 4a)
was listed by Fischer-Piette (1950: 149) as a measured “Ex-
emplaire guré”, which does not strictly constitute a lectotype
designation, even though he also noted several fragmented
“paratypes”. Johnson (1994: 23) referenced Fischer-Piette’s
statement but credited him with having listed the “Holotype”
as well as “fragment of paratype”, while also noting additional
“paratypes” (MCZ 45255). is also is not a lectotype designa-
tion (see introductory text regarding lectotypes). e original
lot contained two specimens, one intact and one in three frag
-
ments; a label associated with it indicates that the specimens
were received from Pease in1869. e intact specimen (now
separated from the original lot as MNHN IM-2000-30831),
which is labeled as “Exemplaire g.”, corresponds very closely
in size to the illustration of Crosse (1876: pl.1, gs4, 4a) and
to the measurement of 13mm of Fischer-Piette (1950: 149),
though the original description gave a height of 12mm. It is
therefore here designated as the lectotype, the broken speci-
men in the original lot becoming a paralectotype.
similaris Pease, 1870, Helicteres rugulosa var.
[Helicteres] (Amastra) rugulosa var. similaris Pease, 1870: 96.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Cyclamastra
Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1905). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Paralectotypes MNHN IM-2000-30833 (2spms,
1of which in fragments).
type LocALity.—“[Waimea] Kauai” [sic].
remArks
Considered by Pease as a variety of a species of “Hélictères”
(i.e. genus Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not
used and it is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the
subgenus Amastra (see introductory text regarding species of
Pease). e original description was not explicitly based on
only a single specimen but neither does it imply the existence
of syntypes. e species was not listed by Fischer-Piette (1950:
149, 150). A lectotype (MCZ45253) was validly designated
and illustrated by Johnson (1994: 24, pl.2, g.11), who
also listed paralectotypes (MCZ58936, MCZ298498), and
restricted the type locality as above. A label associated with
the MNHN specimens indicates that they were received from
Pease in1869, and they are here treated as paralectotypes.
simplex Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig.4E)
Helicter (Leptachatina) simplex Pease, 1869: 170.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Lectotype (Fischer-Piette1950: 73) MNHN
IM-2000-30834; paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-30835 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“Ins. Hawaii”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens in
the collections of both Pease and Crosse, and noted multiple
“individus” and “suture quelquefois [sometimes] étroitement
bordée”. Cooke (in Hyatt& Pilsbry1910 [in1910-1911]:
38, pl.1, gs. 8, 9) noted two specimens presented by Pease
to ANSP and illustrated one of them (ANSP57821) but did
not mention the type status of either. Fischer-Piette (1950: 73)
noted an “Exemplaire-type” and a “paratype” (said to meas-
ure7.5 and 7.0mm, respectively, both values slightly greater
than the actual sizes of7.3and6.6mm), thereby designating a
lectotype (see introductory text regarding lectotypes), though
without illustrating it. e two specimens are now MNHN
IM-2000-30834 and MNHN IM-2000-30835, respectively.
Johnson (1994: 24) referenced Fischer-Piette’s statement but
credited him with having listed the “Holotype”; he also listed
the above ANSP specimen as a “paratype”, and mentioned
additional paratypes (MCZ45176).
solida Pease, 1869, Helicter
(Fig.4F)
Helicter (Amastra) solida Pease, 1869: 173.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Metamastra
Hyatt & Pilsbry, 1911) subrostrata (Pfeier, 1859), junior synonym;
or Amastra (Amastrella) decorticata Gulick in Gulick& Smith 1873,
senior synonym, valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Syntype MNHN IM-2000-30836 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“ins. Oahu”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens in the
collections of both Pease and Crosse. Pilsbry& Cooke (1915
[in1914-1916]: 28, 29, 31, pl.7, gs1-3) treated a single lot
259
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
in the MCZ as the “type lot”. It contained four specimens,
which they referred to three species: Amastra (Metamastra)
textilis (Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825) (not gured by
Pilsbry& Cooke1915 [in1914-1916]), Amastra (Amastrella)
decorticata Gulick in Gulick& Smith 1873 (gured by Pils-
bry& Cooke1915 [in1914-1916]: pl.7, g.1) and Amastra
(Metamastra) subrostrata (Pfeier, 1859) (2spms gured by
Pilsbry& Cooke1915 [in1914-1916]: pl.7, gs2, 3). Pils-
bry& Cooke (1915 [in1914-1916]: 29) explicitly considered
one of the two A.subrostrata shells (probably that illustrated
in their g.2) and the A.decorticata shell to have contributed
to the original description (external colour and dimensions,
and aperture, respectively); they therefore considered solida
to be a synonym of both subrostrata and decorticata. Fischer-
Piette (1950: 73) simply listed “un exemplaire” in the collec-
tions of the Journal de Conchyliologie, referencing Pilsbry&
Cooke (1915 [in1914-1916]: 28, pl.7, gs2, 3). Johnson
(1994: 24) listed three (not four) syntypes in the MCZ, but
under two catalogue numbers (MCZ23341, MCZ141388),
indicating that these three were those gured by Pilsbry&
Cooke (1915 [in1914-1916]: pl.7, gs1-3). He also noted
the listing of the additional syntype by Fischer-Piette (1950:
A
D
G
H
I
E
F
BC
F
ig
. 4. — Amastridae: A, Helicteres laevis Pease, 1870, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30828, 9.2 mm; B, Helix luteola Férussac, 1825, holotype MNHN IM-2000-30829,
17.0 mm; C, Helicter pachystoma Pease, 1869, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30830, 13.0 mm; D, Helicteres rugulosa Pease, 1870, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30831,
12.8 mm; E, Helicter simplex Pease, 1869, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30834, 7.3 mm; F, Helicter solida Pease, 1869, syntype MNHN IM-2000-30836, 14.0 mm;
G, Helicteres sphaerica Pease, 1870, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30837, 10.1 mm; H, Helix spirizona Férussac, 1825, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30839, 22.3 mm;
I, Helicteres tenebrosa Pease, 1870, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30841, 12.7 mm. Scale bars: 5 mm. Dimensions given are shell height.
260 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
73). Resolution of the status of solida could be achieved by
designation of one of the MCZ specimens as the lectotype,
which would either:1)reduce solida to the synonymy of sub-
rostrata; or2)establish solida as the senior synonym of decorti-
cata. While the former action would promote nomenclatural
stability (subrostrata and decorticata would remain valid),
the latter would be more reective of the main points of the
original description of solida (but would establish solida as
the valid name for decorticata). e MNHN specimen would
then become a paralectotype of H. solida; pending such ac-
tion, it continues to be treated here as a syntype.
sphaerica Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.4G)
[Helicteres] (Amastra) sphærica [sic] Pease, 1870: 94.
Achatinella (Amastra) sphærica [sic] – Crosse1876: 98, pl.1, gs5, 5a].
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Cycla-
mastra). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30837; paralectotype MNHN IM-2000-30838 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (from article title).
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicteres, though the formal genus name was not used and it
is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subgenus
Amastra (see introductory text regarding species of Pease).
e original description was not explicitly based on only a
single specimen but neither does it imply the existence of
syntypes. Fischer-Piette (1950: 149) listed the specimen il-
lustrated by Crosse (1876: pl.1, gs5, 5a) as a measured
“Exemplaire guré” (though, as is clear from the context,
inadvertently as “rugulosa”) and also noted a “paratype”
(they are now MNHN IM-2000-30837 and MNHN IM-
2000-30838, respectively). Johnson (1994: 24) referenced
Fischer-Piette’s statement but credited him with having
listed the “Holotype” as well as “paratypes” [sic], while also
noting additional “paratypes” (MCZ45162). Neither treat-
ment constitutes a lectotype designation (see introductory
text regarding lectotypes). e slightly taller, more globular
of the two MNHN specimens appears to be that gured by
Crosse and is therefore here designated as the lectotype. A
label associated with the specimens indicates that they were
received from Pease in1869.
spirizona Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.4H)
Helix spirizona Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 480.
Helix (Cochlogena) spirizona Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56 [no-
men nudum].
Achatina spirizona – Deshayes1851: 196, pl.155, gs14-15.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Paramastra
Hyatt & Pilsbry, 1911). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30839; paralectotypes MNHN IM-2000-36736 (2spms); possible
paralectotypes MNHN IM-2000-30840 (2spms), MNHN IM-
2012-36735 (3spms).
type LocALity.—“probablement […] les îles Sandwich”.
remArks
e largest specimen in the original lot, with which a typical
black-bordered Férussac label is associated, closely matches
the illustrations of Deshayes (1851: pl.155, gs14, 15),
notwithstanding the hole in the shell (for stringing it as a
necklace or other ornamentation) that is not depicted; it is
here selected as the lectotype (MNHN IM-2000-30839); the
remaining specimens in the original lot are paralectotypes
(MNHN IM-2000-36736). Labels associated with the other
two lots (MNHN IM-2000-30840, MNHN IM-2012-36735)
indicate that the specimens were in the Deshayes collection,
and therefore may have been in Férussac’s collection. ey
are here considered possible paralectotypes.
tenebrosa Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.4I)
[Helicteres] (Leptachatina) tenebrosa Pease, 1870: 92.
Achatinella (Leptachatina) tenebrosa – Crosse1876: 97, pl.3, g.5.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30841.
type LocALity.—“l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii)” (from article title).
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicter, though the formal genus name was not used and it
is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subgenus
Leptachatina (see introductory text regarding species of Pease).
e original description was implicitly based on more than
one specimen: “Coloration générale noirâtre ou d’un brun
rougeâtre”. Fischer-Piette (1950: 149) listed the specimen
illustrated by Crosse (1876: pl.3, g.5) as an “Exemplaire
guré” and Johnson (1994: 26) referenced Fischer-Piette’s
statement but credited him with having listed the “Holo-
type”, while also noting additional “paratypes” (MCZ45189,
MCZ50110). Neither treatment constitutes a lectotype
designation (see introductory text regarding lectotypes). A
label associated with the MNHN specimen indicates that it
was received from Pease in1869. It closely matches the shell
illustrated by Crosse in both size and appearance and is here
designated as the lectotype.
261
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
tenuicostata Pease, 1869, Helicter
(not illustrated – see remarks)
Helicter (Leptachatina) tenuicostata Pease, 1869: 170.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Syntype MNHN IM-2000-30842 (1spm).
type LocALity.—“Ins. Hawaii”.
remArks
e original description was explicitly based on specimens
in the collections of both Pease and Crosse. Cooke (in Hy-
att& Pilsbry1910 [in1910-1911]: 68) was “unable to nd
a single authentic specimen of this species”, including none
in the MCZ. On this basis, Fischer-Piette (1950: 72, 73,
pl.47, g.51) illustrated a “holotype”, apparently inferring
“holotype” because no other specimens had been found. e
single specimen was broken in1949 subsequent to having been
photographed (Fischer-Piette1950: 73; collection label) and
is now in multiple small fragments (therefore no illustration
is provided). Johnson (1994: 26) simply referenced Fischer-
Piette (1950: 72, pl.3, g.51), accepting the specimen as
the holotype. Neither Fischer-Piette’s nor Johnson’s treatment
constituted a lectotype xation (see introductory text regard-
ing lectotypes). A label associated with the specimen indicates
that it was received from Pease in1868. Although the speci-
men is labeled as the “type”, it is not here designated as the
lectotype, pending a thorough search for syntype material in
better condition.
textilis Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.5A)
Helix textilis Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 482.
Helix (Cochlogena) textilis Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56 [nomen
nudum].
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Meta-
mastra). Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Probable syntypes MNHN IM-2000-30770
(5spms; largest of which, Fig.5A).
type LocALity.—“îles Sandwich”.
remArks
Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825: 482) did not illustrate
the species and provided only a short description, and it was
not treated by Deshayes (1851). It is therefore dicult to as-
certain the status of the MNHN specimens. Hyatt& Pilsbry
(1911 [in1910-1911]: 165) stated that the “type specimens”
were in the “Jardin des Plantes” (i.e. MNHN). e labels as-
sociated with the MNHN specimens indicate that they are
from the Deshayes collection, and therefore possibly Férus-
sac’s collection. ey are therefore treated here as probable
syntypes only.
tristis Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.5B)
Helix tristis Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 482, pl.68, gs6, 7.
Helix (Cochlogena) tristis – Férussac 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56 [nomen
nudum].
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Amastrella).
Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30843; paralectotypes MNHN IM-2000-30844 (2spms).
type LocALity.—“les îles Sandwich”.
remArks
Not treated by Deshayes (1851). A label associated with the
specimens is a typical black-bordered label of the Férussac col-
lection and states that they were received from “Gaudicho” (i.e.
Gaudichaud); it therefore conrms that they were obtained
during the Freycinet expedition. e labels to which the three
specimens were once glued says “type” and “Coll. Férussac
1837”. All three shells closely match Férussac’s illustrations,
although one retains a signicant amount of periostracum
that is not shown in the illustrations. However, the other two
are damaged, probably in the course of removing them from
the label, so the undamaged specimen, with periostracum,
is here selected as the lectotype (MNHN IM-2000-30843);
the remaining specimens in the original lot are paralectotypes
(MNHN IM-2000-30844).
turgidula Pease, 1870, Helicteres
(Fig.5C)
[Helicteres] (Leptachatina) turgidula Pease, 1870: 89.
Achatinella (Leptachatina) turgidula – Crosse 1876: 96, pl.4, g.5].
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina) pachystoma (Pease, 1869), subspecies (see Cowie
etal. 1995: 128).
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30845.
type LocALity.—“insula Kauai”.
remArks
Considered by Pease as a species of “Hélictères” (i.e. genus
Helicter, though the formal genus name was not used and it
is therefore placed in square brackets above) in the subge-
nus Leptachatina (see introductory text regarding species of
Pease). e original description was not explicitly based on
only a single specimen but neither does it imply the existence
of syntypes. Fischer-Piette (1950: 149) listed the specimen
illustrated by Crosse (1876: pl.4, g.5) as the “Holotype”
and a label of the collection of the Journal de Conchyliolo-
gie, associated with this specimen and written at the time
of Fischer-Piette, also says “Holotype”. Johnson (1994: 26)
simply referenced Fischer-Piette’s statement, while also noting
262 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
additional “paratypes” (MCZ45182, MCZ45183). Neither
Fischer-Piette’s nor Johnson’s treatment constituted a lecto-
type designation (see introductory text regarding lectotypes).
A label associated with the MNHN specimen indicates that
it was received from Pease in1869. e specimen matches
Crosse’s illustrations, although the clear demarcation between
the whitish lower part of the body whorl and the remainder
of the shell is not so distinct in the actual specimen. It is here
designated as the lectotype.
turritella Férussac, 1821, Helix
(Fig.5D)
Helix (Cochlogena) turritella Férussac, 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56.
Helix turritella – Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard 1825: 481.
Achatina turritella –Deshayes1851: 196, pl.155, g.13.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Amastrinae, Amastra (Paramastra).
Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Possible syntypes MNHN IM-2000-30847
(4spms), MNHN IM-2000-30846 (1spm; Fig.5D).
type LocALity.—“Les îles Sandwich”.
remArks
e name is available from Férussac (1821a: 60; 1821b: 56)
because it was accompanied by the single diagnostic term
“coquille turriculée”. Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard (1825:
481) provided a brief description but no illustration. Labels
in both lots indicate that the material was in the collection
of Deshayes, and possibly therefore of Férussac. e ve
specimens are all more or less smaller than that described
and illustrated by Deshayes (1851: 196, pl.155, g.13) and
therefore no lectotype is here selected and the specimens are
considered here as only possible syntypes.
ventulus Férussac, 1825, Helix
(Fig.5E)
Helix ventulus Férussac in Quoy& Gaimard, 1825: 481.
Helix (Cochlogena) ventulus – Férussac 1821a: 60; 1821b: 56 [no-
men nudum].
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Leptachatininae, Leptachatina
(Leptachatina). Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30848.
t
ype
LocALity
.—“l’île Guam” (in text; error) (“Sandwich Islands”;
on label).
remArks
Both Férusssac (1821a: 60, 1821b: 56) and Férussac in
Quoy& Gaimard (1825: 481) gave the locality as Guam,
whereas the labels (including one with black borders typical
of the Férussac collection) correctly indicate the Sandwich
(i.e. Hawaiian) Islands, as the genus Leptachatina (and the
entire family Amastridae) is endemic to the Hawaiian Is-
lands. is Férussac collection label also indicates that the
shell was from Gaudichaud, as stated by Férussac (1821a:
60, 1821b: 56), conrming that it was obtained during the
Freycinet voyage. Another label says “type” and “collection
Férussac”, and another “Coll. Férussac1837”. e shell
height (13mm) matches that given by Férussac in Quoy&
Gaimard (“cinq lignes et demie”, i.e. 12.4mm) but its width
(6.7mm) is greater than Férussac’s (“deux et demie”, i.e.
5.6mm), although within a reasonable margin of error. We
here designate this specimen as the lectotype. e species
was not treated by Deshayes (1851).
Family eLLobiidAe Pfeier, 1854
sandwichiensis Souleyet, 1852, Auricula
(Fig.5F)
Auricula sandwichiensis Souleyet, 1852: 524, pl.29, gs29-32.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Cassidulinae, Allochroa bronnii
(Philippi, 1846), synonym.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30849 (ex MNHN IM-2000-5115); paralectotypes: MNHN IM-
2000-5115 (4spms).
type LocALity.—“îles Sandwich”.
remArks
e ve specimens in the single original lot range widely in
size. e largest shell is a precise match in size and shape for
Souleyet’s g.32 (presumed life-size shell) and matches the
larger, more detailed g.31 in appearance. Its height and
width (11.5mm, 6.7mm) closely match Souleyet’s given di-
mensions (12mm, 7mm). is largest specimen is therefore
here designated as the lectotype; the other four specimens are
paralectotypes.
Family endodontidAe Pilsbry, 1895
henshawi Ancey, 1904, Endodonta
(Fig.5G)
Endodonta (aumatodon) henshawi Ancey, 1904b: 66, pl.5, gs15,
16.
c
urrent
tAxonomic
stAtus
.—Endodontidae, Cookeconcha
Solem, 1976. Valid species.
t
ype
mAteriAL
.—Syntypes MNHN IM-2000-9654 (5spms;
Fig.5G).
t
ype
LocALity
.—“Palihoukapapa, on the Hamakua slope of
Mauna Kea, Kawaii [Hawaii], an elevation of4,000feet” (from the
introduction to the paper).
263
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
remArks
Although the original description stated that this species
seemed to be abundant, the actual description was not ex-
plicitly based on multiple syntypes, but neither does it imply
that it was based on a only a single specimen. Even though
the paper was published in1904, according to the labels the
specimens were not sent by Ancey until1907, although all
these old labels say “cotypes”. No lectotype is here selected,
pending further research in other museums (BPBM, IRSNB)
holding type or possible type material (Wood& Gallichan
2008: 51).
Fig. 5. — Amastridae: A, Helix textilis Férussac, 1825, possible syntype MNHN IM-2000-30770, 15.0 mm; B, Helix tristis Férussac, 1825, lectotype MNHN IM-
2000-30843, 19.3 mm, g. 6 of Férussac in Quoy & Gaimard (1825); C, Helicteres turgidula Pease, 1870, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30845, 13.7 mm; D, Helix
turritella Férussac, 1821, possible syntype MNHN IM-2000-30846, 18.5 mm; E, Helix ventulus Férussac, 1825, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30848, 12.9 mm. El-
lobiidae: F, Auricula sandwichiensis Souleyet, 1852, lectotype MNHN IM-2000-30849, 11.5 mm, gs 31 & 32 of Souleyet (1852). Endodontidae: G, Endodonta
henshawi Ancey, 1904, syntype MNHN IM-2000-9654, 2.1 mm (shell width), g. 15 of Ancey (1904b). Lymnaeidae: H, Lymnaea oahouensis Souleyet, 1852, lec-
totype MNHN IM-2000-30850, 11.7 mm, gs 39 & 41 of Souleyet (1852). Punctidae: I, Endodonta horneri Ancey, 1904, syntype MNHN IM-2000-9655, 1.0 mm
(shell width), g. 11 of Ancey (1904b). Scale bars: A-F, H, 5 mm; G, I, 1 mm. Dimensions given are shell height unless otherwise stated; reproductions of original
illustrations not to scale.
AB
C
DE
F
GH I
264 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
Family LymnAeidAe Ranesque, 1815
oahouensis Souleyet, 1852, Lymnaea
(Fig.5H)
Lymnaea Oahouensis [sic] Souleyet, 1852: 527, pl.29, gs38-41.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Lymnaeidae, Lymnaea (Pseudisi-
dora iele, 1931) rubella Lea, 1841, synonym.
type mAteriAL.—Lectotype (here designated) MNHN IM-2000-
30850 (ex MNHN IM-2000-27685); paralectotypes: MNHN
IM-2000-27685 (3spms), MNHN IM-2000-27699 (10spms).
type LocALity.—“ruisseaux de l’île Oahou (îles Sandwich)”.
remArks
e original description indicates both dextral and sinistral
individuals, although the plates only illustrate dextral indi-
viduals. All the MNHN specimens are dextral. e largest
specimen is a precise match in size and shape for Souleyet’s
g.41 (presumed life-size shell). e specimen is11.7mm
in height (Souleyet’s description says12mm) and6.5mm
in width (Souleyet’s measurement of9mm is erroneous).
is largest specimen is here designated as the lectotype; the
remaining13specimens are paralectotypes. ose in MNHN
IM-2000-27699 are explicitly labelled as having been obtained
from Gaudichaud in1838, the year after his return from the
voyage of La Bonite.
Family Punctidae Morse, 1864
horneri Ancey, 1904, Endodonta
(Fig.5I)
Punctum horneri Ancey, 1904b: 66, pl.5, gs11, 12.
current tAxonomic stAtus.—Punctidae, Punctum Morse,
1864. Valid species.
type mAteriAL.—Syntypes MNHN IM-2000-9655 (3spms, of
which 1 just an apical fragment; Fig.5I).
t
ype
LocALity
.—“Palihoukapapa, on the Hamakua slope of
Mauna Kea, Kawaii [Hawaii], an elevation of 4,000feet” (in the
introduction to the paper).
remArks
Although the original description stated that this species
was also found on Oahu, the species was described based
on material from the above type locality. e description
was not explicitly based on only a single specimen but
neither does it imply the existence of syntypes. Although
described in the Journal de Conchyliologie and three older
labels say “cotypes”, no lectotype is here selected, pend-
ing further research in other collections (BPBM, IRSNB)
holding type or possible type material (Wood& Galli-
chan2008: 53).
Acknowledgements
We thank Philippe Bouchet and Neal Evenhuis for nomen-
clatural advice and discussion, and the latter for detailed
review of the manuscript. Manuel Caballer of the MNHN
project E-RECOLNAT ANR-11-INBS-0004 and Yuri Kantor
helped with photography. is work is part of a US National
Science Foundation funded project (DEB-1120906) and
was partially supported by an MNHN Visiting Curatorship
to Robert Cowie, initiated by Philippe Bouchet, whom we
thank for his support.
REFERENCES
Specic dates of publication and sources of additional dating
and other information are given in square brackets, if known.
Ancey c. f. 1904a.—Études sur la faune malacologique des Iles
Sandwich. Journal de Conchyliologie51(4) [1903]: 295-307,
pl.12. [28April; p.351. Not 25March 1903 as given by Cowie
etal. (1995: 207)]
Ancey c. f. 1904b.—Report on semi-fossil land shells found in
the Hamakua district, Hawaii. Journal of Malacology 11(3):
65-71, pl.5. [29 September; wrapper, p.51]
b
Aker
h. b. 1940.—Zonitid snails from Pacic islands – part
2. 2. Hawaiian genera of Microcystinae. Bernice P.Bishop
Museum Bulletin 165: 105-201, pls 21-42. [20 January; verso
of title page]
b
ALdwin
d. d. 1895.—Descriptions of new species of Achatinel-
lidae from the Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 1895: 214-236, pls10, 11. [2July;
verso of volume title page]
beck h. 1837.—Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi musei principis
augustissimi Christiani Frederici. Fasciculus primus et secundus.
Mollusca gastraepoda pulmonata. Fasciculus primus. [Published
by the author], Hafnia [= Copenhagen], 100p.
c
hemnitz
J. h. 1795.—Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet.
Vol. XI. G.N. Raspe, Nürnberg [= Nuremberg). [xx] + 310 +
[ii] p., pls174-213.
c
oAn
e. v. & k
AbAt
A. r. 2014.—2.400Years of Malacology.
Eleventh edition. American Malacological Society, 1128p.+
94p. [Annex 1: Collations of Malacological Signicance] + 65p.
[Annex 2: Collation of the Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet
(1837-1920), 14January; p.1]
cooke c. m. Jr. & kondo y. [1961]. — Revision of Tornatel-
linidae and Achatinellidae (Gastropoda, Pulmonata). Bernice
P.Bishop Museum Bulletin 221[1960]: 1-303. [15February;
Cowie etal. (1995: 210)]
cowie r. h. 1998.—Catalog of the Nonmarine Snails and Slugs of
the Samoan Islands. Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology 3. Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu. viii + 122p.[13January]
cowie r.h. 2015.—e recent apple snails of Africa and Asia
(Mollusca: Gastropoda: Ampullariidae: Afropomus, Forbesopomus,
Lanistes, Pila, Saulea): a nomenclatural and type catalogue. e
apple snails of the Americas: addenda and corrigenda. Zootaxa
3940(1): 1-92. [27March; p.1] DOI
c
owie
r. h. & e
venhuis
n. L. 2001.—Achatinellastrum Pfeier,
1854and Achatinellidae Gulick, 1873 (Mollusca: Gastropoda):
proposed conservation. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 58(3):
188-192. [31September]
c
owie
r. h., e
venhuis
n. L. & c
hristensen
c. c. 1995.—Cata-
log of the Native Land and Freshwater Molluscs of the Hawaiian
Islands. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. vi + 248p.[3June]
cox p. A. & eLmQvist t. 2000.—Pollinator extinction in the
Pacic islands. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1237-1239.
265
Hawaiian land snail types in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle
ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
crosse h. 1876 — Note complémentaire sur quelques espèces de
mollusques terrestres habitant l’île Kauai (îles Hawaii). Journal
de Conchyliologie 24(1): 95-99, pls1, 3, 4 [in part]. [1March;
Fischer-Piette (1937: 90)]
dAvis p. 1996.—Museums and the Natural Environment: the Role
of Natural History Museums in Biological Conservation. Leicester
University Press, London. xvii + 286p.
deshAyes g.-p. 1851.—Histoire naturelle générale et particulière
des mollusques terrestres et uviatiles tant des espèces que l’on
trouve aujourd’hui vivantes, que des dépouilles fossiles de celles qui
n’existent plus ; classés d’après les caractères essentiels que présentent
ces animaux et leurs coquilles. Tome deuxième. Seconde partie.
J.-B. Baillière, Paris. 260p., Atlas, Tome Second. [Coan& Kabat
(2014: Annex.1, p.14-16) provided a collation of this complex
work, giving 1851as the year of publication of the entire second
part of the second volume. e pages cited herein (p.191-196)
certainly appeared after May 1850 as they reference the dated
text pages associated with the plates for Achatinella of Reeve’s
Conchologica Iconica (Reeve, 1849-1851). e editorial preface
to the entire work, by J.-B. Baillière, is dated 25July 1851.
Cowie etal. (1995: 210) gave the date of this second part of the
second volume of text as 30July 1851. Coan& Kabat (2014:
Annex.1, p.15) gave the date of pl.155 (the only plate cited
herein) as 4August 1832]
direction 1. 1954. — Addition to the Ocial Lists and Ocial
Indexes of certain names and of the titles of certain books dealt
with in Opinions 182 to 194. Opinions and Declarations rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 3(30):
401-416. [21 April; cover page]
dixon g. 1789. — A Voyage Round the World; but more Particularly
to the North-West Coast of America: performed in 1785, 1786,
1787, and 1788, in the King George and Queen Charlotte, Cap-
tains Portlock and Dixon. Geo. Goulding, London. xxix + [2] +
360 + 47p., 17pls [after 7February; Cowie etal. (1995: 211)]
duncAn f. m. 1937.—On the dates of publication of the Soci-
ety’s ‘Proceedings’, 1859-1926. Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London (A) 107 (1), 71-84. [15April; back cover of
vol. 107, issue 2]
duncAn r. p., boyer A. g. & bLAckburn t. m. 2013.—Magni-
tude and variation of prehistoric bird extinctions in the Pacic.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(16): 6436-
6441. [16April; p.6436]
evenhuis n. L. 2008.—Celebrating a centuria of volumes of the
Bishop Museum Occasional Papers: history, contents, dates of
publication, and author index. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers
101: 1-76. [26September; cover page]
férussAc A. e. J. p. J. f. d’A. de 1821a. — Tableaux systématiques
des animaux mollusques classés en familles naturelles, dans lesquels
on a établi la concordance de tous les systèmes; suivis d’un prodrome
général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou uviatiles, vivants ou
fossils. Deuxième partie. (Première section). Tableaux particuliers
des mollusques terrestres et uviatiles, présentant pour chaque famille
les genres et espèces qui la composent. Classe des gastéropodes. Ordre
des pulmonés sans opercules. II. Tableau systématique des Limaçons,
Cochleae. III. Tableau systématique des pulmonés géhydrophiles.
A.Bertrand, Paris; J. B. Sowerby, London. 114p.[folio edition;
January][For detailed dating see Cowie (1998: 94)]
férussAc A. e. J. p. J. f. d’A. de 1821b. — Tableaux systématiques
des animaux mollusques classés en familles naturelles, dans lesquels
on a établi la concordance de tous les systèmes; suivis d’un prodrome
générale pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou uviatiles, vivants ou
fossiles. Deuxième partie. (Première section). Tableaux particuliers
des mollusques terrestres et uviatiles, présentant pour chaque famille
les genres et espèces qui la composent. Classe des gastéropodes. Ordre
des pulmonés sans opercules. II. Tableau systématique des Limaçons,
Cochleae. III. Tableau systématique des pulmonés géhydrophiles.
A.Bertrand, Paris; J. B. Sowerby, London. 111p.[quarto edi-
tion; June]. [For detailed dating see Cowie (1998: 94)]
fischer-piette e. 1937.—Dates de publication du “Journal de
Conchyliologie” de 1861a [sic] 1900. Journal de Conchyliologie
81(1): 88-92. [15April; last page of volume]
fischer-piette e. 1950.—Liste des types décrits dans le Journal
de Conchyliologie et conservés dans la collection de ce journal.
Journal de Conchyliologie 90 (1-3): 8-23, 65-82, 149-180, pls1-5.
[8-23, pl.1, 15January; 65-82, pls 2-4, 1April; 149-180, pl.5,
1October; for details of dating see Cowie (2015: 72)]
f
reycinet
L. [c.
de
s.]
de
1829-1839.—Voyage autour du monde,
entrepris par ordre du Roi, sous le ministère et conformément aux
instructions de S. Exc. M.le Vicomte du Bouchage, Secrétaire d’État
au Département de la Marine, exécuté sur les corvettes de S. M.
l’Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819et
1820; publié sous les auspices de S. E. M.le Comte Corbière, Secré-
taire d’État de l’Intérieur, pour la partie historique et les sciences
naturelles, et de S. E. M.le Comte Chabrol de Crouzol, Secrétaire
d’État de la Marine et des Colonies, pour la partie nautique. Histo-
rique. Tome deuxième. Pillet Aîné, Paris, 916p.[première partie
(p.1-515) 1829, deuxième partie (p.517-916) 1839, troisième
partie (p.917-1470) 1839]
guLick J. t. & smith e. A. 1873.—Descriptions of new species
of Achatinellinae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
1873(1): 73-89, pls 9-10 [June; Duncan (1937: 72)]
hAwksworth d. L. & cowie r. h. 2013.—e discovery of
historically extinct, but hitherto undescribed, species: an under-
appreciated element in extinction-rate assessments. Biodiversity
and Conservation 22: 2429-2432.
hopkins g. w. & freckLeton r. p. 2002.—Declines in the
numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications
for conservation. Animal Conservation 5(3): 245-249.
hyAtt A. & piLsbry h. A. [1910]-1911.—Manual of conchology,
Structural and Systematic, with Illustrations of the Species. Sec-
ond series: Pulmonata. Volume 21. Achatinellidae (Amastrinae).
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. xxii + 387p., 56pls
[1-64, pls 1-9, 1910; 65-387, i-xxii, pls 10-56, 1911; for detailed
dating see Cowie etal. (1995: 214)]
iczn [i
nternAtionAL
c
ommission
on
z
ooLogicAL
n
omencLA
-
ture] 1999.—International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Fourth edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
London, xxix + 306p.
iczn [i
nternAtionAL
c
ommission
on
z
ooLogicAL
n
omencLA
-
ture] 2003.—Declaration 44. Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature 60(4): 263.
J
ohnson
r. i. 1994.—Types of shelled Indo-Pacic mollusks
described by William Harper Pease (1824-71). Bulletin of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology 154(1): 1-61. [7December; cover]
LeA i. 1841.—[Fifty-seven new species; nearly the whole of them
from this country]. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
2(17): 30-35. [21May; Cowie etal. (1995: 217)]
L
ydeArd
c., c
owie
r. h., p
onder
w. f., b
ogAn
A. e., b
ouchet
p.,
cLArk s., cummings k. s., frest t. J., gArgominy o., her-
bert
d. g., h
ershLer
r., p
erez
k., r
oth
b., s
eddon
m.,
strong e. e. & thompson f. g. 2004.—e global decline
of nonmarine mollusks. BioScience 54(4): 321-330.
neAL m. c. 1934. Hawaiian Helicinidae. Bernice P.Bishop Museum
Bulletin 125: 1-102.
opinion 184. 1944. — On the status of names rst published in
volumes 1 to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and Chemnitz (J. H.),
Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, Nürnberg, 1769-1795.
Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature 3(3): 25-36. [17 October; cover page]
peAse w. h. 1862.—Descriptions of two new species of Helicter
(Achatinella, Swains.), from the Sandwich Islands, with a his-
tory of the genus. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
1862(1): 3-7. [30June]
p
eAse
w. h. 1868.—Descriptions d’espèces nouvelles d’Auriculella,
provenant des îles Hawaï. Journal de Conchyliologie 16(4): 342-
347, pl.14. [16October; Fischer-Piette (1937: 89)]
266 ZOOSYSTEMA • 2016 • 38 (2)
Cowie R.H. et al.
peAse w. h. 1869.—Descriptions d’espèces nouvelles du genre
Helicter, habitant des îles Hawaii. Journal de Conchyliologie 17(2):
167-176. [16April; Fischer-Piette (1937: 89)]
peAse w. h. 1870.—Observations sur les espèces de coquilles ter-
restres qui habitent l’île de Kauai (îles Hawaii), accompagnées de
descriptions d’espèces nouvelles. Journal de Conchyliologie 18(1):
87-97. [10January; Fischer-Piette (1937: 90)]
p
feiffer
L. 1859.—Descriptions of eight new species of Achatinella
from Mr. Cuming’s collection. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London 27: 30-32. [between February and June; Duncan (1937: 71)]
p
hiLippi
r.A. 1846.—Diagnoses testaceorum quorundam novorum.
Zeitschrift für Malakozoologie 1846: 97-106. [July issue; p.97]
piLsbry h. A. & cooke c. m. Jr. — 1912-1914. Manual of Con-
chology. Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the species.
Second series: Pulmonata. Vol.22. Achatinellidae. Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. lviii + 428p., 63pls [1-64, pls
1-12, 1912; 65-176, pls 13-39, 1913; 177-428, i-lviii, pls 40-63,
1914; for dating details see Cowie etal. (1995: 228)]
p
iLsbry
h. A. & c
ooke
c. m. J
r
. [1914]-1916.—Manual of
Conchology. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol. XXIII. Appendix to
Amastridae. Tornatellinidae. Index, vols. XXI-XXIII. Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. xi + 302p., 55pls [1-48, pls
1-13, 1914; 49-256, pls 14-38, 1915; 257-302, i-xi, pls 39-55,
1916; for dating details see Cowie etal. (1995: 228)]
p
onder
w. f., c
Arter
g. A., f
Lemons
p. & c
hApmAn
r. r.
2001.—Evaluation of museum collection data for use in bio-
diversity assessment. Conservation Biology 15: 648-657.
Q
uoy
J. r. c. & g
AimArd
L. p. 1824-[1826].—Zoologie, in
freycinet L. C. D. de, Voyage autour du monde, entrepris par
ordre du Roi sous le ministère et conformément aux instructions de
S. Exc. M.le Vicomte du Bouchage, Secrétaire d’État au Départe-
ment de la Marine, exécuté sur les corvettes de S. M. l’ Uranie et la
Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819et 1820; publié
sous les auspices de S. E. M.le Comte Corbière, Secrétaire d’État de
l’Intérieur, pour la partie historique et les sciences naturelles, et de
S. E. M.le Marquis de Clermont-Tonnerre, Secrétaire d’État de la
Marine et des Colonies, pour la partie nautique. Pillet Aîné, Paris,
i-vii p., 1-712, 96pls. [1-328, 1824; 329-616, 1825; 617-712,
1826; for detailed dating see Cowie etal. (1995: 229)]
r
eeve
L.A. 1849-1851. — Conchologia Iconica: or, Illustrations of the
Shells of Molluscous Animals. Volume VI. Containing the monographs
of the genera Voluta, Fissurella. Partula. Achatinella. Artemis.
Lucina. Hemipecten. Oliva. Strombus. Pterocera. Rostellaria.
Struthiolaria. Reeve& Benham, London. 6pl, of Achatinella,
accompanying text. [Achatinella text accompanying plates dated
April and May 1850; Cowie etal. (1995: 230)]
régnier c., fontAine b. & bouchet p. 2009.—Not knowing,
not recording, not listing: numerous unnoticed mollusk extinc-
tions. Conservation Biology 23(5): 1214-1221.
régnier c., AchAz g., LAmbert A., cowie r.h., bouchet p. &
fontAine b. 2015a.—Mass extinction in poorly known taxa.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(25): 7761-
7766. [23June; p.7761]
régnier c., bouchet p., hAyes k. A., yeung n. w., chris-
tensen
c. c., c
hung
d. J. d., f
ontAine
b. & c
owie
r. h. 2015b.—Extinction in a hyperdiverse endemic
Hawaiian land snail family and implications for the under-
estimation of invertebrate extinction. Conservation Biology
29(6): 1715-1723.
richLing i. & bouchet p. 2013.—Extinct even before scientic
recognition: a remarkable radiation of helicinid snails (Helicini-
dae) on the Gambier Islands, French Polynesia. Biodiversity and
Conservation 22: 2433-2468.
r
odmAn
J. e. & c
ody
J. h. 2003.—e taxonomic impedi-
ment overcome: NSF’s Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise
in Taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Systematic Biology 52:
428-435.
s
Artori
A. f., g
Argominy
o. & f
ontAine
b. 2014.—Radia-
tion and decline of endodontid land snails in Makatea, French
Polynesia. Zootaxa 3772(1): 1-68. [3March; p.1]
s
oLem
A. 1976.—Endodontoid Land Snails from Pacic Islands
(Mollusca: Pulmonata: Sigmurethra). Part I. Family Endodontidae.
Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. xii + 508p.[29Octo-
ber; p.i]
soLem A. 1983.—Endodontoid land snails from Pacic islands (Mol-
lusca: Pulmonata: Sigmurethra). Part II. Families Punctidae and
Charopidae, Zoogeography. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural
History. ix + 336p.[7January; p.i]
s
oLem
A. 1990.—How many Hawaiian land snail species are
left? and what we can do for them. Bishop Museum Occasional
Papers30: 27-40. [6June; Evenhuis 2008: 63]
souLeyet f. L. A. 1852. — Voyage autour du monde exécuté pendent
les années 1836 et 1837 sur la Corvette La Bonite, commandée par
M. Vaillant. Zoologie. Tome deuxième. A. Bertand, Paris. 664p.,
Atlas Vers pl.1, Zoophytes pls 1, 2, Mollusques pls 1-45.
suArez A. v. & tsutsui n. d. 2004.—e value of museum
collections for research and society. BioScience 54(1): 66-74.
tomLin J. r. Le b. 1944.—Catalogues and collections. Proceedings
of the Malacological Society of London 26(2-3): 70-73 [1Decem-
ber; front matter of volume].
wheeLer Q. d. 2004.—Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phy-
logeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Series B: Biological Sciences 359(1444): 571-583.
wood h. & gALLichAn J. 2008.—e new molluscan names
of César-Felix Ancey including illustrations of type material
from the National Museum of Wales. Studies in Biodiversity and
Systematics of Terrestrial Organisms from the National Museum of
Wales, Biotir Reports, 3, i-vi, 1-162. [June; p.iii]
Submitted on4November 2015;
accepted on 29March 2016;
published on 24June 2016.
