Teretia Norman, 1888

Morassi, Mauro & Bonfitto, Antonio, 2015, New Indo-Pacific species of the genus Teretia Norman, 1888 (Gastropoda: Raphitomidae), Zootaxa 3911 (4), pp. 560-570 : 561

Genus Teretia Norman, 1888

Type species: Pleurotoma anceps Eichwald, 1830

Diagnosis. Shell up to about 12 mm in length, narrowly fusiform to fusiform, sculpture predominant spiral consisting of spiral cords of nearly equal strength or with a peripheral cord stronger than other cords. Axial growth lines forming at most weak plicules on subsutural ramp. Aperture lanceolate, outer lip simple forming a deep to very deep sinus immediately beneath the suture. Protoconch planktotrophic, narrowly conical with diagonally cancellate sculpture.

Remarks. The genus Teretia Norman, 1888 was proposed as nomen novum for Teres Bucquoy, Dautzenberg and Dollfus, 1883 non Boettger, 1878, with Pleurotoma anceps Eichwald, 1830 , a European Miocene-Pliocene species, selected as type-species (see Tucker 2004 for detailed references). The genus Teretia is documented in Europe at least from the early Miocene. Janssen (1984) reported six species from the Burdigalian of Winterswijk ( Netherlands): Teretia fusianceps Nordsieck, 1972 , T. anceps Eichwald, 1830 and four unidentified species. In his revision on the Pliocene “turrids” from southern Spain, Vera-Peláez (2002) described Teretia pentacarinifera Vera- Peláez, 2002 and Teretia policarinarum Vera-Peláez, 2002 from Málaga, two species morphologically similar to Teretia anceps and T. teres (Reeve, 1844) . According to Vera-Peláez (2002: 223), the specimen from the Pliocene of Roero ( Italy) figured by Cavallo & Repetto (1992: 134, fig. 356) under the name Stenodrillia sulciensis ( Bellardi, 1877) belongs to Teretia pentacarinifera . The online checklist of Italian Pliocene fossil “turrids” of the Italian Society of Malacology (SIM) (SIM Editorial Board, 2014) recognizes seven Teretia species, including the very poorly known T. nana ( Hornung, 1920) , and lists T. intermedia ( Foresti, 1874) as a full species while Brunetti & Vecchi, 2003 treated this latter taxon as a “form” of T. anceps . The SIM checklist, however, makes no mention of T. monterosatoi ( Cipolla, 1914) considered a valid species by Brunetti & Vecchi (2003). The latter authors stated that T. fusianceps from the Miocene of Netherlands is very similar to the Miocene-Pliocene T. turritelloides ( Bellardi, 1847) but did not explore this resemblance further. Brunetti & Vecchi (2003: pl. 2 fig. 6) figured a specimen from Monteveglio (Bologna, Italy) under the name T. turritelloides , but this specimen differs from the syntype of T. turritelloides photographed by Ferrero Mortara et al. (1981: plate 18, fig. 6) in having more prominent spiral sculpture and fewer secondary cords, and seems more similar morphologically to the specimen in the photograph of T. fusianceps from Winterswijk (Gelderland, Netherlands) published by the Natural History Museum of Rotterdam (NMR) (NMR Editorial Board, 2014). Baluk (2003: 67) considered T. fusianceps a synonym of T. anceps and figured three specimens under this name, two of which ( Figs. 1–2 ) are comparable to T. fusianceps while the other has “typical” features of T. anceps . Two additional fossil species described by Seguenza (1880:258), namely Homotoma cincta and H. multicingula , both originally compared to Teretia anceps , are currently accepted as members of Teretia ( Brunetti & Vecchi, 2003) . More recently, Schnetler (2005) described Teretia guersi from the Gram Formation, Late Miocene of Denmark, which was based on two specimens retaining only 1½ teleoconch whorls but morphologically distinctive. Barnard (1958) described Acrobela acus on the basis of examination of a few shells from Southern Africa. Although the species has a typical raphitomine diagonally cancellate protoconch, it was assigned to genus Acrobela Thiele, 1925 , which is currently regarded as a synonym of Microdrillia Casey, 1903 (see WoRMS Register) in the family Borsoniidae Bellardi, 1875 . In his revision of the borsoniine gastropods from Southern Africa, Kilburn (1986: 635) noted this discrepancy and suggested allocation of A. acus in Teretia . Althougth Barnard (1958) did not compare the Southern African species with Teretia teres , the two taxa are actually very similar and examination of the type material of A. acus would be necessary to more precisely define its morphological features and confirm specific distinction from T. teres . Following current literature (WoRMS Register), A. acus is here treated as a valid species belonging to the genus Teretia .

Figures

FIGURE 1. A – J. Teretia neocaledonica sp. nov. A. Holotype (MNHN IM- 2000 - 28374), New Caledonia, Cruise SMIB 8, stn DW 146 - 147, 5.9 x 2.4 mm. B – J. Paratype (MZB 60095), New Caledonia, Cruise SMIB 8, stn DW 146 - 147. B. Shell, 4.9 x 2.1 mm. C – D. Coated specimen, frontal and lateral view, scale bar 2 mm. E. Penultimate whorl, scale bar 500 µm. F – G. Microsculpture of penultimate whorl, scale bar 100 µm. H – I. Protoconch, scale bar 500 µm. J. Details of protoconch 1, scale bar 100 µm. L – T. Teretia sysoevi sp. nov. L – M. Holotype (MNHN IM- 2000 - 28375), South-West Pacific, Cruise MUSORSTOM 7, stn DW 507, 5.8 x 2.3 mm. N. Paratype 1 (MNHN IM- 2000 - 28377), New Caledonia, Cruise BATHUS 3, stn DW 786, 7.2 x 2.8 mm. O – T. Paratype 2 (MZB 60096), New Caledonia, Cruise MUSORSTOM 4, stn DC 168. O. Shell, 7.5 x 2.9 mm scale bar 1 mm. P. Penultimate whorl, scale bar 600 µm. Q. Microsculpture of penultimate whorl, scale bar 200 µm. R. Microsculpture of penultimate whorl, scale bar 80 µm. S – T. Protoconch, scale bar 200 µm.

FIGURE 2. A – G. Teretia tavianii sp. nov., Gulf of Aden, Cruise RED SED 92, stn RS 1. A – B. Holotype (MZB 60097), 3.2 x 1.5 mm. C. Paratype 1 (MZB 60098), penultimate whorl, scale bar 1 mm. D. Surface microsculpture of penultimate whorl, scale bar 200 µm. E – F. Protoconch, scale bar 200 µm. G. Details of protoconch 1, scale bar 50 µm. H – N. Teretia tongaensis sp. nov. H – N. Holotype (MNHN IM- 2000 - 28379), Tonga, Cruise BORDAU 2, stn DW 1553, 8.2 x 3.4 mm H – J. Frontal and lateral view of holotype, scale bar 2 mm L. Penultimate whorl, scale bar 500 µm. M. Microsculpture of penultimate whorl, scale bar 500 µm. N. Microsculpture of penultimate whorl, scale bar 100 µm. O – P. Protoconch, scale bar 200 µm.