Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 79. (Budapest 1987)

Conti, M. A. ; Szabó, J.: Comparison of Bajocian gastropod faunas from the Bakony Mts. (Hungary) and Umbria (Italy)

Fig. 2. Variations in shape of Proconulus baldensis among specimens from the Somhegy excavation Family Trochidae RAFINESQUE, 1815 Proconulus baldensis (PARONA, 1894) 1894: Trochus (Zyziphinus

) baldensis PARONA, p. 389, fig. 35. 1981 : Proconulus rimosus SZABÓ, p. 57, Pl. I: figs 9-13. 1983: Proconulus baldensis (PARONA) — CONTI & FISCHER, p. 493, fig. 2, Pl. I: 6-8. 1984: Proconulus baldensis (PARONA) — CONTI & FISCHER, p. 135, Pl. II: figs la-b, 2. Remarks — The figure presented by Parona is rather different from the real shape, enough to regard the Bakony specimens as a new species. After the comparison with the Umbrian material, identified using Parona's originals by CONTI & FISCHER (1984), the name P. baldensis might be applicable to the Bakony material, too. The shape of this species is rather variable (Fig. 2.) : the spire and the whorls of Parona's specimen are flattened, the suture is similar to the grooves between, the spiral lines. The Umbrian and the major part of the Bakony specimens have a slightly sigmoidal whorlsurface. The suture of the Bakony specimens runs in a rather deep furrow, except on a few stratigphically younger specimens. The latter ones have flat whorls and spire, and a strongly rounded periphery. Distribution — Aque Fredde, Subfurcatum Zone; Case Canapine, Humphriesianum Zone; Somhegy, Humphriesianum to Parkjnsoni Zone Proconulus epuliformis SZABÓ, 1981 1981 : Proconulus epuliformis SZABÓ, p. 56, Pl. I: figs 6-8. 1984: Proconulus (Laeviconulus

) acutispira CONTI et FISCHER, p. 135, Pl. II: figs 3a-c, 4. 1987 : Proconulus (Laeviconulus

) acutispira CONTI et FISCHER — CONTI et MONARI, p. 000. Remarks — The species was described after the Bakony material, showing a great variability in the ornament. Conti & Fischer established P. (Laeviconulus

) acutispira as type species for its subgenus. There is no spiral ornament in the Umbrian material, but there are similar specimens in the more variable Bakony material, too. The comparison of the faunas justified that the finds, named as they are in the synonymy, belong to the same species. Later, CONTI & MONARI (1987) described another Umbrian species, assigned also to "Laeviconulus" subgenus because it has no spiral ornament, as well. The mentioned comparison between the populations of different ages and localities showed that the lack or presence as well as the extent of the spiral lineation came into being randomly. The Umbrian material contains only one variety while the Bakony collection presents the entire range (Fig. 1) : no lineation, slight linaetion, covered by rare or dense lines, and there are some specimens with only juvenile or only adult lineation. There is no trend observable either temporarily or spatially. Regarding these circumstances, the independence of the subgenus "Laeviconulus" is uncertain. Distribution — Somhegy, Humphriesianum to Parkinsoni Zone; Case Canepine, Humphriesianum Zone; "Bivio Macerino" ? condensed Murchisonae to Humphriesianum Zones — Humriphesianum Zone.