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

Genus Trochopsidea Wenz, 1938 Type species: Trochopsis moroi G. G. GEMMELLARO, 1879 Trochopsidea haidingeri (STOLICZKA, 1861) (Figure 52) 1861: 1'joxonema HaidingeriSTOI

.. — STOLICZKA, p.

177, pi. 3, fig. 3. Lectotype — GBa 2008/69/27/1 (selected here). Material — An almost complete (lectotype) and a one whorl fragment without peristome are in the "originals collection". The latter specimen does not belong to the same species, but unidentifiable. Eleven further syntypes found in the background collection; all specimens are strongly recrystallized. Measurements 11 HL HP lectotype 8.2 4.7 3.6 Shape — High cvrtoconical shell with blunt apex and feebly convex whorls, separated by weakly impressed suture. Protoconch depressed, first whorl almost planispiral around initial chamber, its morphology correspond to BANDEL's (1982) "archaeogastropod type". Last whorl tending downward threfore shell reminds pupoid shape. Periphery subangulate on juvenile whorls but rounded subsequendy. Base convex and anomphalous. Peristome continuous, subcircular not thickened. Inner lip almost vertical (slightly backward inclined from axis) and having shallow furrow, parallel to edges from middle of parietal lip to middle of columellar lip. Outer lip prosocline and feebly reflected on some specimens. Sculpture — Shell completely smooth, even growth-lines hardly visible also with strong magnification. Orientation of growth-lines feebly prosocline. Remarks — On the fragmentary specimen from the figured ones, the growth-lines are feebly prosocline and also somewhat opisthocyrt. Both specimens have different ornament from those that is visible in STOLICZKA's figure and from the description. The figure is also erroneous in having a pointing apex, the protoconchs of all syntypes are clearly depressed, the first whorl is almost planispiral in every case. D W AA AL 4.1 2.8 66° 11° ln lack of sinuous growth-lines on the whorls and beside the archaeogastropod type protoconch, the correct genus identification can not be Poxonema. The peristome and other shell characters indicative to Trochopsidea, though the unusually high spire is quite unique in this genus. Distribution — Hallstatt, Hierlatz Alpe, Upper Sinemurian (Oxynotum Zone). Figure 52 — Trochopsidea haidingeri (STOLICZKA, 1861), lectotype. — 3: copy of the original figure from Tafel III of STOLICZKA (1861) paper; A-B: the lectotype in natural size, apertural (A) and dorsal (B) views; C-D: apertural (C) and dorsal (D) views in x5 magnification. Genus Pewisiella STOLICZKA, 1868 Type species: Pitonellus conicus D'ORBIGNY, 1853 As a result of their revision, FISCHER & WEBER (1997) published a specimen, the only syntype, as the holotype of Pitonellus conicus D'ORBIGNY, 1853 that is considerably different from the Herlatz Alpe specimens on one hand and also from D'ORBIGNY's original figures on the other hand. The magnitude of differences justify instituting of a new species on the Hierlatz Limestone specimens: Pewisiella stolic-^kai n. sp. (see below). STOLICZKA (1868, p. 345) clearly expressed that he has saw the differences from D'ORBIGNY's (1853) figures but he belived that D'ORBIGNY's drawings were wrong in reality. (The notice suggests also that STOLICZKA has ne\

r

er seen D'ORBIGNY's specimen.) Therefore he applied the morphology of the Hierlatz Alpe specimens to determine the diagnostic characters of his new genus, Pewisiella STOLICZKA, 1868 in the original designation. Consequendy, Pewisiella stolic^kai n. sp. is the actual type species but STOLICZKA indicated it with the misused name, Pitonellus conicus D'ORBIGNY, 1853. On the basis of FISCHER & WEBER's (1997) information about the type specimen, the true Pitonellus conicus D'ORBIGNY, 1853 does not seem really correspond even to the Peivisiella concept because the basal and peristomal morphology is so strongly different (just like in the case of Peivisiella} turbinata n. sp. see below). A comparison of the specimens is necessary to decide whether the two forms are really members of the same genus or not.