Ampullaria conica var. expansa Nevill, 1877 Figs 4, 12C

Ampullaria conica var. expansa Nevill, 1877. Cat. Moll. Ind. Mus. Fasc. E: 9.

Current taxonomic status.

Pila scutata (Mousson, 1848), probable synonym, pending further taxonomic research.

Type locality.

“Pegu” [= Bago, Bago Region, Myanmar] (Nevill, 1877: 9); W. Theobald, Esq., leg. (see Remarks).

Type material.

Holotype (original designation): NZSI M.2426 (registered 8 January 1894). Paratypes: specimens listed by Nevill (1877: 9, 1885: 5), not found in the ZSI collections, perhaps misplaced when the collections were moved from the Indian Museum to ZSI (8-10 spms); the shell figured by Hanley and Theobald (1874 in 1870-1876: pl. 114, fig. 5), location unknown.

Shell dimensions.

Holotype: SH 56.6 mm, SW 49.7 mm, AH 40.6 mm, AW 33.8 mm.

Remarks.

Nevill (1877: 9) listed seven specimens from “Pegu” collected by Theobald, and one from “Tenasserim?” and one from “Mandalay?” each with "No history". He also noted that the shell illustrated by Hanley and Theobald (1874 in 1870-1876: pl. 114, fig. 5) was referable to this taxon; it is therefore also to be considered a paratype. Subsequently, Nevill (1885: 5) listed the seven Pegu specimens from Theobald (with "type var.") but three (not one) from "Tenasserim (?)" and one from "Mandalay (?)", all four from the collection of Stoliczka. Thus it is not clear whether there were eight or ten paratypes, as either “one” or “three” from “Tenasserim?” could be in error. Nevill (1877: 10) gave measurements for the holotype and the shell height, at least, matches that of the present specimen (NZSI M.2426); shell width was given as 48 mm, while the present measurement is 45.6 mm, probably within the margin of error. We therefore consider it to be the holotype. None of the paratypes could be found in NZSI and the location of the specimen illustrated by Hanley and Theobald is unknown. The old specimen label associated with the holotype (Fig. 12C) is almost unreadable. However, a newer label (Fig. 12C) indicates Dr F. Stoliczka as the collector, although both this label and the register indicate “Pegu” as the locality, with the collector indicated in the register as unknown, i.e. with a question mark ( “?”). Nevertheless, given that Nevill (1877: 9, 1885: 5) was consistent in noting Theobald as the collector of the Pegu specimens, we consider that Theobald was indeed the collector of the holotype and that the label noting Stoliczka as the collector reflects an inadvertent error, perhaps associated with Stoliczka having collected the “Tenasserim” and “Mandalay” specimens. Cowie (2015: 36) treated Ampullaria expansa Nevill as a synonym of either Ampullaria ampullacea Linnaeus, following Sowerby (1910: 56), or gracilis Lea, following Prashad (1925: 81), but refrained from making a definitive decision, pending further research. The holotype of Ampullaria expansa (Fig. 4) is clearly not Ampullaria ampullacea, based on its shell shape. In fact, it seems more likely that Ampullaria expansa is a junior synonym of the widespread Pila scutata (Mousson, 1848), which is known from Myanmar (Low et al. 2013: 56; Cowie 2015: 47). Nonetheless, we refrain from formally synonymising Ampullaria expansa Nevill with Pila scutata Mousson, pending further, taxonomic research.