Malacology - Science topic

Thank you Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman and Enrico Talenti !

This species is not (yet) established in Norway. It might be too cold for them here, but there are some warmer locations in the south where they could possibly survive. I think I will dissect out the love darts /gypsobelum and keep them with the shells for future reference.

I think Roman Bohdan Hołyński is a little bit too negative about this paper. There apparently was no prior phylogenetic hypothesis, and the classification was based on complementary characters, such as long/short penial flagellum. Obviously, one of those two states must be a symplesiomorphy with respect to the other, and so it is no surprise that one of the groups diagnosed by that feature appears as paraphyletic. Since most systematists now support the idea that genera should be monophyletic, it is perfectly reasonable for the authors to propose some new genera to solve problems of paraphyly. Of course, it would be nice to include data from both molecules and morphology, but as it stands, this molecular tree provides a framework for reinvestigating morphological characters, which can lead to "reciprocal illumination" and refinement of our understanding of the morphological features in this group of snails. The tree could be wrong and some of the new names not warranted, but if that is so, then the generic names can be synonymized, and there is no permanent damage done.

I think "Mon. Alb" is O. Boettger, 1878; Monographie der Clausiliensection Albinaria v. Vest. In: L. Pfeiffer: Novitates Conchologicae 5. Cassel. Pp. 39-173, pls. 145-148 (available on line).

Boettger described Albinaria discolor inaequata based on material from Blanc's collection with "MS" (manuscript) mention of inaequata on his label (see page 130).

"Kstr." is indeed a Kuster's monograph as indicated by Maxim. It is H.C. Küster, 1847; Die Schliessschnecken und die verwandten Gattungen (Clausilia, Balea, Cylindrella, Megaspira) In: Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen. Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz 1 (14): 1-355, pls. 1-38. Clausilia discolor is p. 80-81, n° 71; pl. 8, figs. 34-37.

Again Meretrix casta for sure!

geographical spread suggests Cardita leana but the shape is very similar to Cardita caliculata which could have been introduced by the Red Sea. The specimen is very similar to one that i find in Mediterranean Sea.

T you very much Godfried

Ciao,

I agree with Dmitry, they look like Lymnaeidae or something close. Also I suggest that you collect shells and a bulk sample for sieving.

Saluti

Vittorio

Dear Dr. Roberto,

thanks for the identification and for your view. Triphotrids are poorly studied in India. 

Rajan, the photo is still viewable but you can go for a good microscope to capture it well. Wow, after almost 100 plus years this is (T. acuta) being reported. Excellent.

this is my opinion respect to the species regarding your question.

1. Columbellidae (Mitrella sp.) 

2. Mitridae (Mitra sp.)

3. young of Sabia conica (Schumacher)

4. Nassariidae

5. Spondylus (maybe regius)

6. Rissoidae (genus Rissoina)

7. Arcidae

8. Olividae very young

9. Mitridae

10. Columbellidae (genus Mitrella)

Best regards Roberto Ardovini.

I suppose Philippines (Visayas). Now i show you the list.

1. Veneridae

2-3 Phasianellidae

4. Marginellidae (genus Volvarina)

5. Rissoidae (genus Rissoina)

6. Mytilidae (genus Brachidontes)

7. Mitrolumna sp

8. Neritidae

9. Muricidae (genus Thais)

10. Mytilidae (genus Mytilaster)

Best regard Roberto Ardovini.

Dear Mr. Martin-Garin,

Thank you for your help.

I will do as you advised me and I hope to receive an answer.

Best regards

I think it's a young  specimen of Thracia villosiuscula (Macgillivray, 1827).

Looks like juvenile Columbella mercatoria (L., 1758)

I agree with Dr Andrew! The black spots indicate the developing embryo

No, I can't see forams or ostracods but definitely looks like inoceramid  fragments. usually calcite or aragonite. What age are your sediments?

Hi Gianluigi, you can download a pdf of Retusidae and Co. in the WEB by Gruppo Malacologico Livornese. It is quite complete and accurated, even for those taxa which remain doubtful. It is not very good for pictures, which however fit perfectly the description or are from original diagnosis.

The link is: http://www.societaitalianadimalacologia.it/PDF/Coppini-2002.pdf

Good luck

Now give you the solution:

A Pomacea canaliculata juv. (Lamarck, 1819)

B Cerithidea decollata Linnaeus, 1758

C Cassidula nucleus (Gmelin, 1791)

D Neritina olivaceus (Recluz, 1842)

Opercollo Ampullaridae.

E Conus coccineus juv. Gmelin, 1791

F Stenomelania sobria Lea, 1850

Bye Roberto Ardovini

Excellent, thank you!

I would recommend to use keys (for example, Benthem Jutting's ones) instead of posting photographs, without any locality data. Aquatic mollusks are highly variable in conchyliological characters and any identifications made on base of these photographs will be true to generic level only. Especially, considering there are so many sister species only possible to recognize using DNA

I am in agreement with Henk, likely Geloina bengalensis. 

Dear Mahmonir,

to help you seriously should have material. As well necessary to know the region of Ocean and what type of association with squids - it is commensal, ectoparasitic or... ?

I'm sending you one article  about copepods and Note what to find to identify:

Copepoda associated with West Indian invertebrates parts I-IV started in 1960....

They as well have some keys. As for me caudal ramus, cephalothorax, antennae like Pseudanthessius.

Andrey

Dear Roberto Ardovini,

Viviparus vs. Bellamya. Please check apex of spire for immediate recognition. Suture shape and whorl angle would also help.

V. viviparus is not present beyond Palearctic realms.

All the best,

Ümit

Mactrinula striatula (Linnaeus, 1767) is closer ...

Hi Deepak,

Possibly castus and gaudiosus are correct, but I'm not specialist on Indo-Pacific mollusks. However, you can certainly exclude mutabilis, which is a different, Atlanto-Mediterranean species.

SALUTI

Vittorio

Dear Gayashan,

Identification of fifty photographs is a lot to ask. I would be much more inclined to try to help if you had tried to provide your own identifications first. That way, you would learn a lot more from the identifications given freely by experts than simply receiving a list of names. Also a scale bar and locality data would be useful.

Luoyang:

P. madianensis is reported from Early Cambrian limestone erratics in Early Miocene glaciomarine deposits of Antarctica. The documented specimens do show fine growth lines but no muscle scars or any other indications of soft parts on apparently original aragonitic shell. See link:

Best

Syed

Hello,

The Comitas-species are very difficult to identify. The first shell from Madagascar is in my opinion not the Schepman (Surcula melvilli), which is from Banda Sea Indonesia.

The figure in the Schepman Siboga publications shows another shell. Though I cannot be sure, the Madagascar shell could be Comitas eurina (Smith, 1899). 

For the second shell there are more oportunities, maybe C. luzonica or C. galathea.

For more Comitas-species the distribution area is very large!

Hi,

Yo could look into the Gastropteridae (Cephalaspidea), many species of the different genera have been observed both crawling on substrate and swimming/flaping. They also have some interesting structures that may be chemosensors in the head region.

The only one, is Gemmuloborsonia moosai yes it is right

The type is figured in this book: Higo S., Callomon P. and Goto Y. 2001. Catalogue and Bibliography of the Marine Shell-bearing Mollusca of Japan. Type Figures. Osaka: Elle Scientific Publications. 208 p.

Dear Carlo, it could be related to Parodizia uruguayensis Pereira de Medina, 1959?

see: Da-Silva, Maria-Cristina-Pons; Veitenheimer-Mendes, Inga-Ludmila, 2004: Transferencia do genera monotipico Parodizia Medina de Bithyniidae (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia) para Pyramidellidae (Gastropoda, Heterobranchia). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 21(2): 277-280

Dear Cătălin,

From what I could find on a quick search on the Internet, I understand that L. pygmaeus is a species currently found only near the Danube in the area of Giurgiu (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/156068/0).

It may be possible that the species had a larger geographic range in the past, but, just in case it didn't, I suggest you also look for information on ornaments made from other Lythoglyphus species, as close comparison material.

For example, L. naticoides was used in prehistoric times for making ornaments. Here's a paper that can get you started:

Apparently, a L. naticoides necklacewas also found in Romania:

Dear Rajendar,

Ravinesh is right! Specimen 1. Melo melo and 2. Nassarius livescens 

Best wishes

Deepak

Hello Khadjia  some more works for you  Gianluigi

Joshua,

  The primary characters that have historically categorized bivalves have been many through the years.  Systems ranging from ctenidia (gills) to stomach form to ligament and hinge have been variously argued to be of key value. Authors have also looked to mantle fusion, siphon type, shall microstructure, adduct or muscles, and on and on.  The reLity is, of course, a blend of observable characteristics is essential in final determination.  And in "tough calls" molecular work comes into play.  It's best to start with typical observable form of the bivalve based on location of the umbo, shel shape, relative location and size of adduct or muscle (s) scars and palliative line, and hinge teeth (if present) structure.  Does the shell have a nacreous (mother of pearl) interior?  Are there hinge ossi less (lithodesma), chondrophore, etc

 If you have soft tissue start with siphons (fused, separate,.fringed?) andante edge (free, fused, eyes, etc)?  Foot, byssus, etc etc.

Starting with a basic but extensive guide, with pictures and photos and geographically appropriate, can give you a start. Most of these will have line drawings to help you find structural guideposts. 

Bob

Some species have movements during all the days, an also lymnaeids should have this movements

Thanks so much Prof Rios.

We have pretty much worked out a way now that is working OK for most species.  Thank you to everyone for the assistance.

 Dear Levan

Do you have the full series of Treatise on Recent Terrestrial

Pulmonate Molluscs-Schileyko AA (1998–2007) Treatise on recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Ruthenica

1–15(Suppl 2):1–2210- in electronic format?

Actually there is a more recent book of same author:

Dharma, B. 2005. Recent & Fossil Indonesian Shells. ConchBooks. 424 pp.

But terrestrial molluscs of Indonesia are one of the least known, for precise identification you often should be familiar with numerous short and broad papers in various journals, like this one:

Schilthuizen, M. & Liew, T. S. (2008): The slugs and semislugs of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo (Gastropoda, Pulmonata: Veronicellidae, Rathouisiidae, Ariophantidae, Limacidae, Philomycidae). – Basteria, 72: 287–306.

If you need some really precise identification it is better to contact some specialist who familiar with material and have publications on molluscs’ taxonomy of Malay Archipelago. Best option is probably to contact one of the authors of this mentioned slug paper.

You might also contact P.  Graham Oliver at National Museum of Wales, Cardiff,

he has worked on Glycmeris and has worked on materials for the Indian Ocean as well.

good luck. Art

We have several lots from Honduras and one from Nicaragua, but none from the islands.

Hi Martina,

It is possible to transplant succesfully this species. However,  the most important thing is to collect the individuals without dislodging its byssus from its attachment. If not, the individuals surely will die. The transport must be done quickly (as much as possible) and try to keep the individuals in the water. If you transport them by zodiac or similar...put the fan mussels in plastic tanks with a portable air pump. Once the individuals are in the new habitat is important to bury them for up to half of the shell ensuring that no swell or storm will affect their position. Progressively they will generate new byssus threads and together with the original ones will conform the new fixation network.

Every individual transplanted by me was reintroduced in the same original place (marked with GPS) with 100% of survival rate. However, i can not ensure if new habitat conditions will be good for them due to parameters such as currents, food availability, etc.

For any other question please don´t hesitate to contact me.

Best regards

Sergio

I agree with Andrey Gusev even with the first one. I would also say C. edule

You can check the following paper also mentioned above: W.H. Arnold (compiler). 1965. A glossary of a thousand-and-one terms used in conchology. Veliger Vol 7 (Supplement), iii+50 pages. 155 figure.

A type species designation is not required for new genus-group names published before 1931 (Article 13.3). For the Wagner Formenkreis names that I am familiar with, if they are considered genus-group names, type species were fixed in the original publication by tautonymy (ICZN Article 68.4). (The type species of Palliata Wagner, 1907 is Helicina palliata, which was an included species.)

Under ICZN Article 10.4 "Availability of names for divisions of genera", a name introduced for a Formenkreis can be available: "A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division"; but a name used for an aggregate of species which is denoted by a term such as "superspecies" is not deemed to be a genus-group."

The essential question then is whether "Formenkreis" is a term like "superspecies", which is best addressed by those fluent in German. Many Formenkreis names for mollusks have been treated as available by subsequent authors (e.g. H. B. Baker for Helicinidae), so it might be cleaner to accept them as available rather than have to track down who first validated them. It might take an ICZN ruling to settle the question.

Another photos?

Dear Lenneart,

I agree with Dietrich and Konstantin: This is almost sure that not a freshwater snail, but a juvenile Cochlicopa...Surely not lubricella because its big measurments and as this is juvenile we can not say lubrica or nitens too.

Dear Dr Conn,

The thiarid snail Melanoides tuberculata is a good example of invasive species involved in transmission of parasites worldwide. Please see the attached checklist .

Best regards

Hudson

Paredes Carlos, Aldo Indacochea, Franz Cardoso y Kelly Ortega. 2005. Family Ellobiidae  (Gastropoda: Archaeopulmonata) in the Peruvian coast. Rev. peru. biol. 12(1):69-76.

Download:

http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bvrevistas/biologia/v12_n1/Contenido.htm or

Some examples you can find in Folia Malacologica http://www.foliamalacologica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=56

Shikov & Vinogradov, No 21(2) 2013 or Maciorowski, Urbańska & Gierszal, No 20 (2) 2012. All paper are available on-line.

i would also like to know about snail identification

Dear Sanindhar,

you can use my method which was published in:

SKUZA L.,LABECKA A.M.,DOMAGALA J.2009. Cytogenetic and morphological characterization of Corbicula fluminalis (O. F.Müller, 1774) (Bivalvia:Veneroida: Corbiculidae): taxonomic status assessment of a freshwater clam. Folia biol. (Kraków) 57: 177-185.

You can download PDF in my profile.

Best, Anna

Dear Mohd

The buccal sac can be digested in NaOH 10% and the radula is mounted in glycerin. No staining is need, I think.

Good luck in you study.

Best regards

Hudson

Dear Polina.

Thanks for the reply.

In addition to the ethanol tolerance mentioned by the other people who have responded to your question, some fly larvae are able to close off their spiracles. It is likely, given the low metabolic needs for oxygen in many insects, that they could "survive" for some time without breathing. Furthermore, the wax layer of the cuticle is often functions to prevent desiccation, but that means that it is unlikely to be very permeable. I too would be happy to try to help you with identification if you would like to share images with me

This paper raises as many questions as it answer. So much we still do not know. For example: What are the presumed targets of the different peptide toxins in turrids? (presumably ion channels); what are their functions (presumably defense and/or predation, but are there other functions eg. To do with sedation and digestion of prey); why so many different toxins (same question for cones - is there more than a nirvana cabal and a motor cabal); how is the peptide hypervariability determined and retained for a species or is it continually evolving in response to changing environmental pressures. If so what are the selection pressures? OK that's enough from me for now. I am interested in your thoughts on these questions and other questions you may have related to the evolution of turrid peptides.

And could be usefull compare between different means for a range of gray scale??? I mean...if you change the pictures to WB colors...and then get a histogram for gray scale values for each picture (with a mean for each pic)...in this case, image J is a powerfull tool in image processing...and has another options that maybe can help you.