Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi

Psarras, Christos, Koskeridou, Efterpi & Merle, Didier, 2021, Late Miocene Conidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of Crete (Greece). Part 1: genera Conilithes Swainson, 1840 and Conus (Kalloconus) da Motta, 1991, Geodiversitas 43 (24), pp. 1309-1339 : 1325-1328

Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi ( Harzhauser & Landau, 2016)

( Figs 16 , 17 ; Table 7 )

Kalloconus hendricksi Harzhauser & Landau, 2016: 57-59 , figs 3H, 3I, 8F 1 -F 5, 8G 1 -G 3, 8H.

? Conus berghausi – Davoli 1972: pl. 3, figs 12-13.

Kalloconus berghausi – Landau et al. 2013: pl. 81, fig. 1.

TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: NHMW 1870/0033/0005a (see Harzhauser & Landau 2016: fig. 8F 1 -F 5). TYPE LOCALITY. — Lăpugiu de Sus ( Romania), Langhian. STRATIGRAPHIC RANGE. — Langhian of Paratethys (see Harzhauser & Landau [2016] for detailed references), Serravallian of Karaman Basin (Turkey), Tortonian of Italy (Montegibbio, see Davoli [1972]) and Greece (Messara Basin, Crete). MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Filippi: Nine specimens AMPG(IV) 2651-2659 ; ?Filippi, Crete: 30 specimens ( MNHN.F. A72606 to MNHN.F. A72635 ). All specimens display a colour pattern under UV light .

DESCRIPTION OF COLOUR PATTERN

The colour pattern consists of one layer of fluorescent, evenly arranged rows of dots. The dots are evenly spaced, evenly sized, differing in shape. Some dots have an oval shape; others are more rectangular to parallelogram, while a few are arrow-

like shaped ( Fig. 17 ). The axial distance between individual rows does not change with the individual’s growth. Newly developed spiral lines of dots are added to fill the gaps, seen as faded, tiny dots between two rows ( Fig. 17 ). As a result, large specimens tend to have numerous rows of dots, while smaller specimens have less rows. The largest specimen has over 22 rows (abapical rows are not clearly visible), while younger have less than 15. On the spire whorls, there is one spiral row of dots, with most of those partly covered by the suture of the succeeding whorls ( Fig. 16 ).

REMARKS

Recently, Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi ( Harzhauser & Landau 2016) has been separated from Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi Michelotti, 1847 , a very similar species both in shell morphology and in colour pattern. The differences reported by these authors are the relative larger size, the squat, club-shaped shells with a prominent shoulder and the spiral cords on spire whorls of Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi . They stated that the specimens of Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi are smaller and less club-shaped. According to Harzhauser & Landau (2016), we use the subgenus Monteiroconus da Motta, 1991 for Conus berghausi because of the presence of spiral cords on spire whorls. The study material ( Table 7 ) fits the Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi shell morphology, on the constrained, defined shoulder and the smooth, coeloconoid early spire whorls ( Fig. 16 ). In the study material, the pointed, early spire whorls are absent on adult specimens, possibly because of the destruction and erosion, of their early, pointed whorls ( Fig. 16A, B ). This might cause confusion and misleading results in PCA analysis (see Harzhauser & Landau 2016). Thus, we refrain from using this method on the Greek material. Furthermore, Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi has a consistent colour pattern ( Harzhauser & Landau 2016). Harzhauser & Landau (2016) described 13-16 spiral lines of dots on the last whorl ( Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi paratype), with some of them bearing smaller dots. On the Greek specimens, we observe more lines of dots (22 rows visible), and we consider that this small difference probably results from a geographical variation of the character. Finally, the spiral dots on the spire whorls of our Greek specimens, match with Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi . For these reasons we attribute them to this species.

The specimen of Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi from the Karaman Basin ( Turkey) figured byLandau et al. (2013) displays a colour pattern which is identical to the study material. In their figure showing the colour pattern of the species ( Landau et al. 2013: pl. 81, fig. 1), the last row of dots near the suture is near or above the shoulder. This means that this specimen has spiral rows of dots on its sutural ramp, the characteristic pattern of Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi and not flammulae, a pattern character described on Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi by Harzhauser & Landau (2016). Therefore, we believe that the specimens from Karaman Basin are Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi rather than Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi .

The specimens figured by Davoli (1972: pl. 3, figs 12-13) bear a colour pattern identical to the Greek specimens. Furthermore, the morphology of coeloconoid early spire outline and the relatively smooth shoulder are characters, which allow us to differentiate from Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi . The other shells figured in Davoli as Conus berghausi ( Davoli 1972: pl. 3, figs 11, 17-25) could be either Conus (Monteiroconus) berghausi or Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi . The uncertainty results from the unclear figured shell morphology and colour patterns of these specimens and for the time being, we refrain from assigning them to Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi .

The specimen illustrated by Hoernes & Auinger (1879) and named as Conus (Dendroconus) subraristriatus Pereira da Costa, 1866 ( Pereira da Costa 1866: 23 [partim]: pl. 1, fig. 21 [only]), was discussed by Harzhauser & Landau (2016). We do not agree with their conclusion that it belongs to Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi , as the colour pattern consisting of dots encircled by white coloured bands is different from that of Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi . In our opinion, the specimen illustrated by Hoernes & Auinger (1879) belongs to a different species.

Figures

FIG. 16. — Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi from the Tortonian of Crete (Greece): A, MNHN.F.A72610,?Filippi: the largest specimen collected in abapertural and apical view (apertural view is destroyed). Notice the broken early spire whorls and the relatively equal distance of each spiral row of dots; B, MNHN.F.A72614,?Filippi: a well-preserved specimen, with damaged early spire whorls, but with a well preserved last whorl; C, MNHN.F.A72628,?Filippi: a small specimen with undamaged early spire whorls. Notice the coeloconoid shape of the spire that is missing in the larger specimens. Scale bar: 1 cm.

FIG. 17. — Pattern constituted of dots on Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi (Harzhauser & Landau,2016) from the Tortonian of Crete (Greece).Composite figure from the specimens (MNHN.F.A72610 and MNHN.F.A72628). Scale bar:1 cm.

Tables

TABLE 7. — Shell measurements and ratios Conus (Kalloconus) hendricksi (Harzhauser & Landau, 2016) from the Tortonian of Crete (Greece). Mean and standard deviation are computed from 39 specimens. The largest specimen is the specimen MNHN.F.A72610.

	SL	MD	AH	HMD	AL	SA	LWA	LW	RD	PMD	RSH	SSFD SSFd		PV
Largest specimen	28.24 mm	17.07 mm	26.57 mm	22.33 mm	27.03 mm	146°	39.5°	1.65	0.64	0.84	0.06	–	–	–
Mean	15.8 mm	10.1 mm	14.6 mm	11.7 mm	14.6 mm	129.8°	42.6°	1.59	0.69	0.8	0.08	2.54	7.2	0.64
Standard deviation	3.5	2.41	3.46	3.02	3.53	14.4	4.08	0.11	0.04	0.05	0.04	–	–	–