Sarmatigibbula Sladkovskaya, 2017

Harzhauser, Mathias, 2021, The Cainozoic to present-day record of Circum-Mediterranean, NE Atlantic and North Sea Cantharidinae and Trochinae (Trochoidea, Gastropoda) - a synopsis, Zootaxa 4902 (1), pp. 1-81 : 53

Genus Sarmatigibbula Sladkovskaya, 2017 †

Type species. Trochus podolicus Dubois de Montpereux, 1831 , OD (Sladkovskaya 2017: 1542), as subgenus of Gibbula Risso, 1826 . Middle Miocene (Sarmatian, Volhynian, Bessarabian), Central and Eastern Paratethys ( Austria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova).

Diagnosis. The type species is representative of a group of species, characterized by trochiform, robust shells with angulated shoulder and basal angulation. Gradate spires are typical but conical outlines occur as well. The umbilicus is usually narrowed by the inner lip to a narrow chink or fully sealed. Delicate to blunt spiral cords are typical and nodes are frequently developed.

Remarks. The basic morphology is reminiscent of extant Gibbula s.s. but the sealed umbilicus is a constant difference. Therefore, it seems to be justified to separate this Eastern Paratethyan group from Gibbula s.s. In the Eastern Paratethys the oldest representatives of Sarmatigibbula date back to the Middle Miocene (Tarkhanian, Tshokrakian, Konkian). From the Eastern Paratethys it migrated into the Central Paratethys with the onset of the Sarmatian (Volhynian). Sarmatigibbula became extinct in the Paratethys with the end of the Bessarabian.

Korobkov (1955: 105) listed “ Insperata Koles.” as section of Calliostoma (Astele) and designated Trochus insperatus Kolesnikov, 1930 as type species. Sladkovskaya (2017) considered Trochus insperatus as junior synonym of Trochus podolicus . Thus, the genera Sarmatigibbula and Insperata would have the same type species. Kolesnikov (1939: 701), however, did not establish a section Insperata and listed Trochus insperata under Calliostoma s.s. Unfortunately, Korobkov (1955) did not cite any reference and thus it remains unclear to which paper of Kolesnikov he referred. It was impossible to trace Insperata in other papers of Kolesnikov. Therefore, it might be based on a mistake by Korobkov (1955). Korobkov (1955) did not provide any description or diagnosis and therefore, Insperata Korobkov, 1955 is unavailable.