Szabó János szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 26. 2008. (Budapest, 2008)

especially from peripheral region. Base ornamented by some faint, wide spiral elevations and furrows, and marked growth-lines. Umbilical region similarly sculptured, but growth-lines bound into ridges here. R e m arks — The measurable spiral angles show that first whorls strongly tend to discoidal shape (angle increases) but this tendency changes into opposite on last whorl; spiral angle decreases, the last whorl slighdy deviates downwards. Low spired pleurotomariid species (like some "morphes" of Pleurotomaria debuchii) may resemble C. monarii, but their angulations in the whorl cross-section help in the distinction. Distribution — Bakony Mts (Hungary): Tés, Hamuháza, Lower Pliensbachian (Davoei Zone); Eplény, manganese ore mine and Kávás-hegy, Upper Pliensbachian (Margaritatus Zone); Lókút, Fenyveskút, Upper Pliensbachian (Margaritatus Zone); Northern Calcareous Alps (Austria): St. Wolfgang (near Bad Ischl), Schafberg (at Mittersee), Upper Pliensbachian; East Sicily (Italy), Galati, Rocche Rosse: Upper Pliensbachian. Family Raphistomatidae KOKEN, 1896 Genus Wortheniopsis). BÖHM, 1895 Type species: Pleurotomaria margarithae KlTTL, 1894 An extremely variable group of Early Jurassic gastropods, having Sisenna and/or Wortheniopsis morphology will be discussed here, that could be most easily characterised by the species name "Pleurotomaria faveolata J. A. EUDESDESLONGCHAMPS, 1849" (though the actual variability is much higher than that has been originally covered with this name). EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS (1849) demonstrated the variability with establishing "varieties" to the different shell character combinations, which were regarded, with some modifications, as species by D'ORBIGNY (1854). Their two basic monographs, especially D'ORBIGNY's idealized figures, strongly influenced how the subsequent authors interpreted the related finds. Recendy, in the monograph about results of a revision of D'ORBIGNY'S material, FISCHER & WEBER (1997) have suggested again the name "Pleurotomaria faveolata", but they have kept also the names of some previous varieties to indicate "morphes". Because, they selected also types to D'ORBIGNY's species beside "Sisenna faveolata", actually they still fixed also a species level subdivision of EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS's "mega-species". The lower spired forms of this group conform to the diagnosis of Sisenna KOKEN, 1896, however, two species from the available material (Wortheniopsis (Wortheniopsis) aff.procera (J. A. EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS, 1849), Wortheniopsis (Wortheniopsis) urkutensis n. sp.) well correspond also to the definition of genus Wortheniopsis J. BÖHM, 1895. No marked morphological distinction possibility has yet been found between the two genera, the differences (spire height and related transformations) do not exceed the subgeneric level seemingly. That is the explanation for the unusual combination of names in the generic identification below. The fact, that some authors (e.g. KNIGHT et al. 1960) regard Sisenna and Wortheniopsis as belonging to different superfamilies (Pleurotomarioidea and Murchisonoidea, respectively), gives a special aspect to this name usage. However, a full revision to explore the nature of this morphological similarity is out of scope of this work. STOLICZKA (1861) applied the name "Pleurotomaria foveolata" for the rare finds from the Hierlatz Limestone. This decision was probably supported by the fact that none of the specimens are conform with the morphology of EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS's varieties or D'ORBIGNY's species; see Wortheniopsis (Wortheniopsis) urkutensis n. sp. and Wortheniopsis (Sisenna) hierlat^ensis n. sp.). With some doubts in the identifications of the Bakony Mts specimens, SZAB(') (1980) tried to follow D'ORBIGNY's (1854) species subdivision. However, the photos of the types in FISCHER & WEBER's (1997) revision demonstrate that D'ORBIGNY's drawings are sometimes significantly different from the specimens; actually they display also not existing forms. Therefore, and because some new "morphes" must be also taken into consideration, further doubts have arisen about tightness of the former identification of the Bakony Mts finds. In seeking for a right taxonomical treatment of this group, most troubles seem to origin from the inferable paleobiology. The main distribution area of the "faveolata group" was the Tethyan (Mediterranean) Early Jurassic carbonate platform system that gradually drowned and disintegrated into disjunct submarine areas; isolated biotopes are known also in stable Eairope. The scattered area resulted in separated populations with independent evolution/morphological development. The discussed forms are known as not really frequent, accessorial elements of predominantly hard bottom dweller associations where their fossilization chance is rather low with their thin-walled (probably nacreous), therefore fragile shells. Their documentation remained poor both horizontally and vertically. That is why the available finds offer two taxonomical models: either a single but extremely variable species (easy way), or numerous species that sometimes may be not well distinguishable in lack of sufficient support from the fossil record. The Hierlatz Limestone finds imply the multispecific taxonomical solution, but the poor preservation does not allow to oudine satisfactorily all the inferable species. Therefore some species, which do not belong to the "historical" materials, are also involved into this revision to support the "multispecific" taxonomical model of the "faveolata'' group. The relatively well preserved specimens of these species are collected from a small, lenticular intercalation of the Úrkút (Bakony Mts) Hierlatz Limestone; they possibly belong to contemporaneous population or have lived in a narrow time interval. The unusually "numerous" specimens