Bookings are essential to visit Queensland Museum, find out more information here.

On the identity of several Queensland camaenids: a reappraisal of their type specimens, accuracy of type localities and their association with extant populations (Eupulmonata: Camaenidae: Figuladra)

Title

On the identity of several Queensland camaenids: a reappraisal of their type specimens, accuracy of type localities and their association with extant populations (Eupulmonata: Camaenidae: Figuladra) (5003 KB) pdf document icon

Author/s

Stanisic, L., & Stanisic, J.

Citation

Stanisic, L. & Stanisic, J. 2020. On the identity of several Queensland camaenids: a reappraisal of their type specimens, accuracy of type localities and their association with extant populations (Eupulmonata: Camaenidae: Figuladra). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum - Nature 62: 133-156. https://doi.org/10.17082/j.2204-1478.62.2020.2020-02

Accepted

23 June 2020

Published online

13 October 2020

Peer reviewed:

Yes

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17082/j.2204-1478.62.2020.2020-02

Keywords

Eupulmonata, Camaenidae, Figuladra, type species, type localities, eastern Queensland

Abstract

Species assigned to Figuladra Köhler & Bouchet, 2020 (Camaenidae) described prior to 1900 were originally diagnosed entirely on shell morphology, particularly colour and banding pattern. This historical reliance on such highly variable shell characters, together with type localities that were either very broad or sometimes completely erroneous, have created confusion about the correct application of their names to living populations of many Figuladra species. This is evident in both the 19th century and contemporary scientific literature. Species here investigated comprised Helix incei Pfeiffer, 1846; Helix lessoni Pfeiffer, 1846; Helix curtisiana Pfeiffer, 1864; Helix (Camaena) praetermissi Cox, 1868; Helix (Camaena) aureedensis Brazier, 1872; and Helix (Camaena) challisi Cox, 1873. This study resolved these historical inconsistencies through a re-examination of type materials as listed by Smith (1992) and their correlation with original descriptions and illustrations, a re-assessment of associated type localities and a consideration of historical events that may have contributed to past inaccuracies. In some cases, purported type specimens bore no resemblance to original descriptions and illustrations and in some instances type localities were completely erroneous or had subsequently been wrongly designated. As a consequence, a number of names have historically been wrongly applied to populations of snails. We provide a reappraisal of the type materials and reassessment of the accuracy of the type localities for the species under consideration.