Scabrilucina vitrea (Deshayes, 1844)

Taylor, John D. & Glover, Emily A., 2013, New lucinid bivalves from shallow and deeper water of the Indian and West Pacific Oceans (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Lucinidae), ZooKeys 326, pp. 69-90 : 73-74

Scabrilucina vitrea (Deshayes, 1844) Figs 3B, 5

Lucina vitrea Deshayes 1844: pl. 106.

Type material.

Not located.Original descriptionL 22 mm, H 20 mm.

Type locality.

'les mers de Sumatra’

Material examined.

Thailand: 2 paired valves and 5 valves (ZMC),Andaman Sea, 27-35 m, 7°00'15"N, 99°21'42"E, 5th Thai Danish Expedition stn 1052 & 1054, sandy mud with dead shells, 10 February 1966. 1 valve (ZMC) Gulf of Thailand, 30 fthms (54 m) 10°04.10'N, 100° 10.1E, Naga Expedition 1960, stn 60-853. Malaysia: 1 valve (NHMUK 163529), Malacca, Cuming Collection.

Description.

Shell white, L to 22.0 mm, H to 25.1 mm, slightly higher than long, H/L 1.08 ± SD 0.05 (n=5), very thin shelled, translucent, prominent posterior and anterior sulcus, umbones prominent. Sculpture of fine, thin commarginal lamellae, lamellae slightly irregular and elevated at posterior and anterior dorsal area, radial sculpture absent. Lunule broad, lanceolate, slightly impressed. Hinge extremely narrow, right valve with single cardinal tooth, lateral teeth absent, left valve with 2 small cardinal teeth, lateral teeth absent. Anterior adductor scar long, narrow, pointed, detached for 2/3rds of length, posterior scar ovoid, pallial line entire with dorsal elevations, close to shell margin, inner shell surface with many fine points of mantle attachment, shell surface glossy outside the pallial line.

Distribution.

Andaman Sea, Straits of Malacca and Gulf of Thailand (Fig. 4).

Remarks.

Similar to Scabrilucina victorialis but smaller and less trigonal in outline of the adult shell, with finer commarginal sculpture and thinner shell.

The type material of Scabrilucina vitrea has not been located but the original figures of Deshayes are clear (Figs 5A, B). The type locality of Sumatra is close to that of the other samples mentioned here. As far as we are aware, except for a listing in Tryon (1872), this species name has not been mentioned since the original description in 1844.