ARIOPHANTIDAE Godwin-Austen, 1888

Coan, Eugene V., Pacaud, Jean-Michel & Kabat, Alan R., 2024, Gérard-Paul Deshayes (1796 - 1875) and his taxa, Geodiversitas 46 (16), pp. 553-930 : 690-691

Family ARIOPHANTIDAE Godwin-Austen, 1888

ammonia , Helix –Deshayes,1850-HistNatTerrFluv1: 197;1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 10, pl. 37A, fig. 1, ex Valenciennes ms. Uncaptioned pl. 37A issued in 1841. — Type locality: none given. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Ariophanta ammonia (Deshayes, 1850) (MolluscaBase) .

baudini, Helix – Deshayes, 1832-EncyMeth: 256. — Type locality: New Guinea. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Naninia , but nomen dubium ( Benthem Jutting 1964: 51) .

belangeri , Helix – Deshayes, 1832b: 413-414, 439, 522, pl. 1, figs 1-3; 1832-EncyMeth: 233-234; 1838-HistNatAnim2: 101- 102; 1843-HistNatAnim3: 304; 1850-HistNatTerrFluv1: 100; 1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 14, pl. 69-I, fig. 4. — Type locality: Pondichery, India; Bélanger. — Type age: Recent. — Type material: MNHN-IM-2000-25160, lectotype; MNHN-IM-2000-23017, 2 paraletotypes; MNHN-IM-2000-23018, paralectotype. — Current status: Ariophanta belangeri (Deshayes, 1832) ( Raheem et al. 2014: 88-89, figs 53F, 54A-C).

convoluta , Helix –Deshayes, 1851-HistNatTerrFluv1: 401, 15, pl. 87, fig. 2. The header on p. 401 suggests that this species would belong on p. 190. — Type locality: Sumatra. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Macrochlamys convoluta (Deshayes, 1851) ( Benthem Jutting 1959: 148) , but nomen dubium .

davidi , Vitrina – Deshayes, 1876: 94-95, 99, pl. 1, figs 5-7. Peking, China. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Macrochlamys davidi (Deshayes, 1876) (MolluscaBase) .

expolita, Helix – Deshayes, 1850-HistNatTerrFluv1: 190-191; 1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 15, pl. 87, fig. 1. — Type locality: none given [ Cambodia]. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: synonym of Sarika resplendens (Philippi, 1847) [ Helix ] (Tryon 1886: 91).

maillardi , Helix – Deshayes, 1863: 86, pl. 10, figs 12-14. — Type locality: La Réunion. — Type age: Recent. — Current status: Dupontia maillardi (Deshayes, 1863) (MolluscaBase) .

moupiniana , Helix – Deshayes, 1870b: 23; 1874b: 13, as Helix maupiniana , pl. 2, figs 16-18. Moupin, Tibet. — Type age: Recent. — Type material: MNHN-IM-2000-34200, 4 syntypes. — Current status: Macrochlamys moupiniana (Deshayes, 1863) (MolluscaBase) .

problematicus , Limax – Deshayes, 1851-HistNatTerrFluv2(1): 963, ex Férussac ms;1851-HistNatTerrFluv: 3, pl. 8F, figs 13-17. Uncaptioned pl. 8F issued in 1839. — Type locality: none given. — Type age: Recent. — Type species (SD Humbert, 1863) of Parmarion P. Fischer, 1855 . Also type species (SD Schileyko, 2003) of the synonymous Rigasia H. Adams & A. Adams, 1858 . — Current status: Parmarion problematicus (Deshayes, 1851) (MolluscaBase) .

vitrinoides , Helix – Deshayes,1831c:[1], pl.26;1832-EncyMeth: 225.— Type locality: none given [“ India ”, according to some authors].— Type age: Recent. — Type material: not found. — Type species (SD Baker, 1941) of Tanychlamys Benson, 1834 (ICZN Code Art. 67.2.2). — Type species of Macrochlamys Benson, 1836 (SD J. E. Gray, 1847) as well as type species (OD) of Orobia Martens, 1860 . Macrochlamys is the type genus of Macrochlamydinae Godwin-Austin, 1888 , a subfamily of the Ariophantidae .However, because this species name had been applied to three different Indian species, and has no type material or type locality, it is impossible if to know if it was even originally from India. Raheem et al. (2014: 152) argued that it is in the interest of stability to continue to regard Macrochlamys indica Benson , in Godwin-Austin, 1883, as the type species of Macrochlamys (and presumably of all three genera), representing a probably misidentified concept of Deshayes’ species (ICZN Code Art. 70.3). What was discussed and figured as Deshayes’ species in Schileyko (2004: 1322-1324, fig.1728) is one of the Indian species. Preece et al. (2022: 228, 248) outlined the complicated nomenclatural history of Macrochlamys and Tanychlamys and concluded that “From Deshayes’s description, Helix vitrinoides is unlikely to belong to the currently accepted concept of Macrochlamys sensu Godwin-Austen ”. This species thus remains a nomen dubium , but a neotype to fix this species on Godwin-Austen’s concept would ensure nomenclatural stability.