Trochidae, Rafinesque, 1815

Petit, Richard E., 2010, The magellanic mollusca of Rochebrune and Mabille, Zootaxa 2723, pp. 41-65 : 45-46

Trochidae

Calliostoma dozei Mabille & Rochebrune in Rochebrune & Mabille, 1889: H.77, pl. 4, fig. 4.

Calliostoma dozei Mabille & Rochebrune – Forcelli (2000: 60), in synonymy.

Locality: “Au sud-est de l’ile Scott.”

Remarks: Placed in synonymy of Calliostoma nudum ( Philippi, 1845) by Forcelli (2000: 60).

Calliostoma hahni Rochebrune & Mabille, 1889 : pl. 4, fig. 3.

Locality: Not stated.

Remarks: Figured but not in text. Rosenberg (2005) suggested that perhaps the authors intended to change the name of C. hahni to C. senius as C. senius is the only unfigured new Calliostoma .

Calliostoma optimum Mabille & Rochebrune in Rochebrune & Mabille, 1889: H.77, pl. 4, fig. 9.

Calliostoma optimun [sic] Rochebrune & Mabille, 1891 [sic] – Forcelli (2000: 60), in synonymy. Locality: “Au sud-est de l’ile Scott; profondeur 80m. ”

Remarks: Placed in synonymy of Calliostoma nudum ( Philippi, 1845) by Forcelli (2000: 60).

Calliostoma senius Mabille & Rochebrune in Rochebrune & Mabille, 1889: H.76.

Calliostoma senius Rochebrune & Mabille, 1891 [sic] – Forcelli (2000: 60), in synonymy.

Locality: “ Nord-ouest de Vauverland ; baie Fleuriais; au sud de l’ile Scott; baie Nassau; par une profondeur de 33m à 80m. ”

Remarks: Placed in synonymy of Calliostoma nudum ( Philippi, 1845) by Forcelli (2000: 60).

Photinula couteaudi Mabille & Rochebrune in Rochebrune & Mabille, 1889: H.82.

Photinula couteaudi Mabille & Rochebrune, 1885 [sic] – Forcelli (2000: 62), in synonymy.

Locality: “Punta-Arenas (Lebrun).”

Remarks: Placed in synonymy of Photinula coerulescens ( King & Broderip, 1832) by Forcelli (2000: 62).

Photinula detecta Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 105 .

Photinula detecta Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.84.

Photinula detecta Rochebrune & Mabille – Ihering (1907: 441).

Locality: “Circa Santa-Cruz Patagoniae” in 1885; as “ Santa Cruz (fossile)” in 1889.

Remarks: Treated as a Recent species by Pilsbry (1889: 282) who then had only the 1885 publication.

Photinula gamma Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 107 .

Photinula gamma Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.79.

Locality: “Circa Punta Arenas Patagoniae.”

Remarks: Forcelli (2000: 63) listed in synonymy of P. taeniata (W. Wood, 1825 [sic; = 1828; = G.B. Sowerby I, 1825]). This name introduced by Sowerby in 1825. It was not used by Wood until 1828.

Photinula halmyris Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 108 . Photinula halmyris Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.89, pl. 4, fig. 6. Locality: “Canal du Beagle.”

Remarks: The 1885 description is cited in the chresonymy in 1889 with the specific name misspelled as almyris. This has been picked up as the correct original spelling by at least one author ( Dell 1971: 194) who placed it in the synonymy of Margarella violacea (King & Broderip, 1831[sic]). Placed in synonymy of Photinatoma taeniata (W. Wood, 1825 [sic]) by Castellanos & Landoni (1989: 14). Placed in synonymy of Margarites violacea ( King & Broderip, 1832) by Forcelli (2000: 57). See Remarks under P. gamma regarding authorship of P. taeniata .

Photinia [sic] hyadesi Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 105 .

Photinula hyadesi Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889, pl. 4, fig. 8.

Photinula hyadesi Rochebrune & Mabille, 1891 [sic] – Forcelli (2000: 63), in synonymy of P. taeniata (W. Wood, 1825 [sic]).

Locality: “Terre del Fuego.”

Remarks: Photinia was a typographical error for Photinula . Photinula hyadesi figured, but not in text, in Rochebrune & Mabille 1889. Placed in synonymy of P. taeniata ( Wood, 1825 [sic]) by Forcelli (2000: 63). See Remarks under P. gamma regarding authorship of P. taeniata .

Photinula marginalis Roch. et Mab. – Ihering (1907: 337). Nomen nudum .

Remarks: An error for P. virginalis in Ihering’s discussion of species listed by Ameghino. Wilckens (1906: 173), in a list of species reported from the Punta Arenas “Magallanian beds” by Ameghino included “ Ph. virginalis (non marginalis ) Roch. u. Mab.” Ameghino evidently is responsible for this error but his work has not been seen.

Photinula paradoxa Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 107 .

Photinula paradoxa Mabille, 1885: 207 .

Photinula paradoxa Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.90, pl. 4, fig. 7.

Locality: “Sud du Cap Horn.”

Remarks: Placed in synonymy of P. taeniata (W. Wood, 1825 [sic]) by Forcelli (2000: 63). The extraneous description by Mabille (July 1885) is not mentioned in Rochebrune & Mabille 1885 (June?) or 1889. See Remarks under P. gamma above regarding authorship of P. taeniata .

Photinula pruinosa Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 106 .

Photinula pruinosa Mabille & Rochebrune in Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.88, pl. 4, fig. 5. Margarites pruinosa Rochebrune & Mabille, 1891 [sic] – Forcelli (2000: 58).

Locality: “Circa Santa-Cruz et Punta-Arenas Patagoniae” in 1885 to which “Lebrun” was added in 1889. Remarks: Earlier publication not mentioned in 1889, and authorship was reversed.

Photinula resurrecta Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 106 .

Photinula resurrecta Mabille & Rochebrune in Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.81.

Locality: “Circa Santa-Cruz Patagoniae.”

Remarks: Earlier publication not mentioned in 1889, and authorship was reversed. Mentioned in a discussion by Forcelli (2000: 63) as a probable synonym of P. coerulescens ( King & Broderip, 1832) .

Photinula viaginalis Rochebrune & Mabille, 1885: 104 .

Photinula virginalis [sic] Rochebrune & Mabille – 1889: H.85–H.86.

Photinula virginalis [sic] Rochebrune & Mabille – Ihering (1907: 441), in synonymy.

Locality: “Santa-Cruz Patagoniae” in 1885; in 1889 it was stated to be a “Fossile, à Punta Arenas.” Remarks: Rochebrune & Mabille in 1889 did not reference their 1885 description but the two descriptions are identical. The spelling viaginalis in 1885 was probably a printers’ error as the shell was described as being pure white. Treated as a Recent species by Pilsbry (1889: 281) who then had only the 1885 description. Placed in synonymy of P.detecta by Ihering (1907: 441)