Pupa affinis (A. Adams, 1855 )

Valdés, Ángel, Feliciano, Kendall & Malaquias, Manuel A. E., 2023, The genus Pupa Röding, 1798 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Acteonidae) in New Caledonia with notes on Recent species, Zootaxa 5270 (3), pp. 471-506 : 490-493

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5270.3.4
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D3EE46BD-0755-4730-AF3C-ACD92085311A
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7860388
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C38798-FF9E-4679-8ED7-28D340FCFB83
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Pupa affinis (A. Adams, 1855 )
status

Treatment

Pupa affinis (A. Adams, 1855) View in CoL

( Figs 2F View FIGURE 2 , 4E View FIGURE 4 , 5E View FIGURE 5 , 6E View FIGURE 6 , 7E View FIGURE 7 , 8E View FIGURE 8 , 13 View FIGURE 13 )

Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855: 61 View in CoL . Type locality: China Seas [= China Sea], New Ireland [= Latangai, Papua New Guinea] , Borneo, Philippines.

? Tornatella fumata Reeve, 1865 View in CoL : [92], pl. 3, fig.10. Type locality: Australia.

Buccinulus huttoni Kirk, 1882: 268 View in CoL . Type locality: Waikanae, New Zealand [disputed by Dell (1956)].

Actaeon cinereus R.B. Watson, 1884: 289–290 View in CoL ; 1886: 631–632, pl. 47, fig. 5. Type locality: Levuka, Fiji, 22 m depth.

Acteon pilsbryi Cossmann, 1902: 160 View in CoL [replacement name for Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 View in CoL , not Tornatella affinis G.B. Sowerby, 1836 View in CoL ].

Type material. Solidula affinis — lectotype (here designated), dry shell, 14 mm long, Port Essington, Australia (ex. NHMUK 20020237c), illustrated by Beu (2004: fig. 24C); 8 paralectotypes, dry shells, 11–20 mm long ( NHMUK 200220236–38), two of them illustrated by Beu (2004: figs. 24A–B); Tornatella fumata — 2 syntypes, dry shells, 9 mm long ( NHMUK 20020233), one of them illustrated by Beu (2004: fig. 24E); Buccinulus huttoni — Holotype, dry shell, 12 mm long ( NMNZ M.000051); Actaeon cinereus — 2 syntypes, dry shells, 9–10 mm long ( NHMUK 1887.2.9.2131).

Material examined. Interior of the Great Reef of Koumac, New Caledonia (20°39.2′S, 164°13.5′E), 10 m depth, [Koumac 2.3 stn. KD516], 1 Nov 2019, 1 specimen 12 mm long (shell) ( MNHN IM-2013-86166 ) GoogleMaps ; Koumac , New Caledonia (20°31.1′S, 164°05.1′E), 13 m depth [Koumac 2.3 stn. KD536, small coral debris, sponges], 06 Nov 2019, 1 specimen 9 mm long (shell) ( MHNH IM-2013-86167 ) GoogleMaps ; Koumac , New Caledonia (20°46.9′S, 164°16.4′E), 2–3 m depth [Koumac 2.3 stn. KB627, coral boulders and debris], 07 Nov 2019, 1 specimen 11 mm long (shell) ( MHNH IM-2013-86144 , isolate KF64) GoogleMaps ; Koumac , New Caledonia (20°47.0′S, 164°16.8′E), 2–5 m depth, [Koumac 2.3 stn. KD554], 13 Nov 2019, 1 specimen 12 mm long (shell) ( MNHN IM-2013-86168 ) GoogleMaps ; Koumac , New Caledonia (20°43.5′S, 164°17.3′E), 11–12 m depth, [Koumac 2.3 stn. KD579, grey sand], 19 Nov 2019, 1 specimen 12 mm long (shell) ( MNHN IM-2013-86169 ) GoogleMaps .

External morphology. Body oval, about the same width throughout. Cephalic shield deeply notched longitudinally, with two rounded posterior extensions covering anterior end of shell ( Fig. 13 View FIGURE 13 ). Foot extending beyond cephalic shield laterally. Body color translucent white, with numerous, minute opaque white dots scattered all over dorsal surface of cephalic shield, foot. Shell solid, narrow, elongate, widest at 1/3 from anterior end, with convex to parallel sides, rounded to elongate anterior end. Body whorl large, about 6/7–7/8 of total length. Spire conical, with 4 whorls. Suture channeled.Aperture elongate, wider anteriorly, narrowing gradually towards posterior end, ending at 1/7 of the posterior end of first whorl. Columellar margin thickened, slightly oblique, with large, channeled anterior fold starting at anterior end of aperture; minute, simple posterior fold located at aperture mid-length, separated from anterior fold by short gap. Protoconch with 1.5 whorls, about 100 µm in diameter ( Fig. 13K View FIGURE 13 ). Sculpture composed of numerous punctuated spiral grooves. Punctuations conspicuous, irregular, oval, situated next to each other, often fused together, within each groove. Grooves separated by gaps wider than grooves. Shell color white to orange, with numerous dark reddish or orange, square to oval patches, sometimes split in two, situated on gaps between punctuated spiral grooves all over shell. One or two bands on body whorl with smaller patches in some specimens. Posterior whorls white or orange with or without orange patches. Operculum translucent ochre, elongate, with a conspicuous triangular extension mid-length, faint transverse and longitudinal striations ( Fig. 4E View FIGURE 4 ).

Internal morphology. Reproductive system with large, elongate penis, otherwise indistinct ( Fig. 5E View FIGURE 5 ). Digestive system with elongate buccal mass ( Fig. 6E View FIGURE 6 ). Oral tube conical, connected to long, curved buccal bulb. Salivary glands, esophagus, connected on proximal end of buccal bulb. Radular formula 65 × 5.0. 5 in a 11 mm long specimen (MNHN IM-2013-86144). Two innermost lateral teeth similar in shape and size, triangular, with broad base; large, elongate, curved, sharp cusp; 5–7 denticles similar to cusp in shape, much smaller ( Fig. 7E View FIGURE 7 ). Three outermost lateral teeth hook-shaped, with single large cusp, 3–4 denticles. Jaws with short, wide elements, bearing 8–9 finger-like projections apically ( Fig. 8E View FIGURE 8 ).

Geographic range. Widespread in the Indo-West Pacific ( Rudman, 2001; Beu, 2004; present paper).

Remarks. Adams (1855) introduced the name Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 based on specimens from the Cuming Museum, collected in various localities of the Western Pacific Ocean. The shells were described as: “cylindrical-ovate, spire acuminate, apex sharp, background yellowish-white painted with various colors; double columella, posterior fold reduced, anterior bilobed.” Adams (1855) also indicated “this species most nearly resembles S. solidula ; the colour varies from uniform reddish-brown to whitish, tessellated with ashy or blackish markings.” We examined photographs of syntypes from Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, Port Essington, Northern Territory, Australia, and Ticao Island, Philippines ( Figs. 13A–C View FIGURE 13 ). These specimens show considerable chromatic and morphological variation but all are elongate shells with irregular scattered dark patches or spots, some of them, at least, clearly conspecific with specimens described herein under the name P. affinis . Particularly a syntype from Port Essington, Australia (NHMUK 20020237c, Fig. 13A View FIGURE 13 ) is virtually identical to the material from New Caledonia here examined ( Figs. 13I–J View FIGURE 13 ), which is also consistent with the usage of the name P. affinis in the modern literature ( Rudman, 2001; Beu, 2004). Due to the broad geographic range of the syntypes and their chromatic and morphological variability, and in order to promote nomenclatural stability and fix the usage of the name P. affinis , the syntype from Port Essington, Australia (NHMUK 20020237c) is here designed as the lectotype of this species. Therefore, we confidently assign the specimens described in this section to the name P. affinis .

The name P. affinis has not been consistently used as valid in the literature. For example, Smith (1884) considered P. affinis a small form of P. solidula (both under Tornatella ). Rudman (2001) illustrated a specimen from New Caledonia consistent with the specimens of P. affinis here examined but classified it under the name P. strigosa . Rudman (2001) considered that P. affinis (A. Adams, 1855) is probably a senior synonym of P. strigosa but argued that the former name is preoccupied by Pupa affinis Rossmässler, 1839 [= Abida secale affinis (Rossmässler, 1839) ] (Family Pupillidae ). Because P. affinis (A. Adams, 1855) was introduced in the genus Solidula , it is a secondary homonym of P. affinis Rossmässler, 1839 , which was introduced in the genus Pupa Draparnaud, 1801 . However, these two names are clearly not congeneric and consequently they do not enter in homonymy ( ICZN, 1999: Article 59.2), thus P. affinis (A. Adams, 1855) is valid.

Reeve (1865) described Tornatella fumata Reeve, 1865 as a “fulvous white, irregularly smeared with black” species. Reeve (1865) also mentioned: “The disposition of the colouring-matter, which is not an unimportant feature in this genus, is in longitudinal smears, not arising, as in varieties of T. solidula , from confusion in a normal pattern of dots.” We examined photographs of two syntypes of T. fumata (NHMUK 20020233, Figs 13D–E View FIGURE 13 ), which appear to be decolored specimens of P. affinis , and therefore T. fumata is here regarded as a possible synonym of P. affinis .

Kirk (1882) introduced the new name Buccinulus huttoni Kirk, 1882 based on a specimen presumably collected in Waikanae, New Zealand. The shell of B. huttoni was described as “white with longitudinal brown wavy lines,” having six whorls, with numerous fine spiral grooves, a columella with a double fold, and a very short spire, “giving a decidedly robust appearance to the shell.” Suter (1913) regarded B. huttoni as a synonym of P. affinis , but Finlay (1926) examined the holotype of B. huttoni and indicated this species is possibly different from other New Zealand species. Dell (1956) expressed doubts that the holotype of B. huttoni was collected in New Zealand and Marshall (1996) commented on the characteristics of the holotype and indicated that it could be “mislocalised” shell, probably P. solidula or a related species. Beu (2004) agreed with this assessment and confirmed that the holotype is an incomplete, severely abraded specimen of P. solidula . We examined a photograph of the holotype of B. huttoni and concluded that it is in fact a synonym of P. affinis .

Watson (1884) described Actaeon cinereus R. B. Watson, 1884 based on two specimens from Fiji, later illustrated by Watson (1886, pl. 46, fig. 5) described as “porcellanous and glossy white, with three narrowish grey bands, made up of small, cindery, somewhat longitudinally arranged spots.” Examination of a photograph of the syntypes of A. cinereus (NHMUK 1887.2.9.2131, Fig. 13G–H View FIGURE 13 ) revealed these specimens are nearly identical to the material here assigned to P. affinis and therefore these two names are here regarded as synonyms.

Cossmann (1902) considered that the Recent species he cited as Actaeon (Solidula) solidulus from the Pliocene of Karikal, India ( Cossmann, 1900) is in fact Actaeon affinis A. Adams [ Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 ]. But Cossmann (1902) argued this name is preoccupied by Tornatella affinis Sowerby, 1836 described for an Upper Cretaceous fossil species of Acteonidae from southern England ( Sowerby, 1836). Therefore, Cossmann (1902) introduced the new name Actaeon pilsbryi Cossmann, 1902 for the Recent Indo-Pacific species. Finlay (1927) argued that because Tornatella affinis Sowerby, 1836 was introduced as a member of the genus Tornatella it does not enter in homonymy with species of Pupa or Solidula , and consequently Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 is not preoccupied by Tornatella affinis Sowerby, 1836 . This opinion was also endorsed by Beu (2004). But because the genera Tornatella and Solidula are synonyms of Pupa , Tornatella affinis Sowerby, 1836 and Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 are secondary homonyms. However, the ICZN (1999: Article 59.3) states that a junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid unless the substitute name is not in use and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric, in which case the junior homonym is not to be rejected on grounds of that replacement. In this case, Actaeon pilsbryi Cossmann, 1902 is not in use, and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric; while Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 is regarded as a member of the genus Pupa , Tornatella affinis Sowerby, 1836 is considered a member of the genus Tornatellaea Conrad, 1860 (e.g., Taylor et al., 1983), therefore Article 59.3 applies and Solidula affinis A. Adams, 1855 is valid. Also, the age of these fossils is not consistent with the use of Pupa in the paleontological literature, often used for specimens not older than the Miocene ( Helwerda 2015).