Helix (Helix) buchii DUBOIS DE

Neubert, Eike, 2014, Revision of Helix LINNAEUS, 1758 in its eastern Mediterranean distribution area, and reassignment of Helix godetiana KOBELT, 1878 to Maltzanella HESSE, 1917 (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Helicidae), Contributions to Natural History 26, pp. 1-200 : 42-48

Helix (Helix) buchii DUBOIS DE MONTPéREUx, 1839 ( Figs 68–74)

1839 Helix buchii DUBOIS DE MONTPÉREUX, Voyage autour du Caucase II: 243 [sur les bords de la Khanitskali].

1854 Helix pomatia var. decussata MORTILLET, Mémoires de l'Institut national genevois 2: 7 [Près de Trébisonde].

1891 Helix (Pomatia) buchii var., Kobelt, Iconographie der Land- und Süsswassermollusken 2 (5): 77, Taf. 139, Fig. 883 [Karabagh].

1903 Pomatia sieversi KOBELT, Nachrichtsblatt der deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft 35: 149 [Tschoroch in den Bergen nÖrdlich von Baku] .

1904 Helix (Pomatia) buchii var. karabaghensis KOBELT, Iconographie der Land- und Süsswassermollusken 2 (11): 191 [name for buchii var., Fig. 883 (1891)].

1906 Helix (Helicogena) pomatia? duschekensis KOBELT, Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet VI : 258, Taf. 366, Fig. 6 [Duschek zwischen Tiflis und dem Kasbek; very prob. Dusheti 42.0858 44.6974].

1906 Helix (Helicogena) buchii var. adsharica KOBELT, Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet VI : 260, Taf. 358, Fig. 1–4 (= Iconographie der Land- und Süsswassermollusken 2 (5): Taf. 139, Fig. 883) [Adsharia, Karabagh].

2008 Helix goderdziana MUMLADZE, TARKHNISHVILI & POKRYSZKO , Journal of Conchology 39 (5): 483 [South-Western Georgia, east of Goderdzi Pass 41.6499 42.6009].

Type specimens:

buchii : holotype MZL, H = 48.9, D = 47.8; decussata: not researched; sieversi: lectotype SMF 9806 (SD Zilch 1952), H = 52.1, D = 53.8, PH = 37.8, PD = 26.6, PrD = 5.5, W = 5.5; karabaghensis: lost? not present in SMF, D = 61 mm (fide Kobelt); duschekensis: lectotype SMF 9637 (SD Zilch 1952), H = 43.5, D = 46.5 PH = 31.1, PD = 33.3, PrD = 5, W = 5; adsharica: lectotype SMF 9609 (SD Zilch 1952), H = 52.1, D = 58.8, PH = 39, PD = 38.9, W = 5; goderziana: Holotype Zoological Research Institute (ZRI), Tbilisi, Georgia, H = 61, D = 60, PH = 40, PD = 34 (not investigated personally).

Specimens examined:

Russia: SMF 74447, Pjätigorsk, 44.0333 43.0666.

Georgia: SMF 9728, Katharinenfeld [Bolnissi], 41.4498 44.5375; SMF 9725, Tiflis, 41.7172 44.7870; SMF 18256, Elisabeth Tal close Tiflis [Assurethi], 41.5914 44.6713; SMF 18253, Marienfeld [Sartitschala], 41.7097 45.1728; SMF 18255, Radscha ; SMF 74448, Kutais , 42.2502 42.7002; SMF 18252, Gelati Monastery , 42.2952 42.7685; SMF 18257, Chula ; SMF 18251, road from Achalzieh to Batum , on the western side of the pass Chula ; Samtavisi (= Samtawissi), 42.0063 44.409, 690 m alt., 9.6.1988, NMBE 522705 /1.

Turkey, Giresun, 12 km S of Giresun , 40.8244 38.4696, 23.7.1990, MENK (11+alk.1) ; Giresun, at the bridge over the Melet Irmagi E of Ordu, 40.9750 37.9364, 11.7.1986, MENK/2 (alk.) ; Giresun, road to Şebinkarahisar 15 km S Giresun, 40.805 38.468, 150 m alt., 28.4.1993, NMBE 513038 /3; Giresun, 49 km S Giresun at the road to Şebinkarahisar , 40.625 38.359, 1010 m alt., 28.4.1993, NMBE 512594 /2; Giresun, road between Üniye and Ordu, 7 km E Bolaman , 41.1 37.648, 20 m alt., 5.9.1989, NMBE 513034 /2; Giresun, road between Giresun and Trabzon, 6 km E Kesap , 40.94 38.579, 20 m alt., 5.9.1989, NMBE 513035 /9; Giresun, coastal road 2 km W Perşembe , 41.068 37.722, 400 m alt., 28.4.1993, NMBE 513037 / 6+alk. 2, NMBE 505486 /1; Trabzon, valley of the Harsit Dere , 7 km upstream from its mouth, 40.95 38.865, 70 m alt., 11.7.1986, NMBE 513032 / 1; ditto, 40.95 38.865, 70 m alt., 24.7.1988, NMBE 512593 /3; Trabzon, road Trabzon to Gümüşhane, left tributary to MaÇka Dere , 1250 m alt., 7.9.1989, NMBE 513036 /1; Rize, valley of the Iyidere 5 km S Ikizdere, 40.758 40.592, 750 m alt., 26.7.1988, NMBE 513033 / 1; Çoruh , rocks of limestone 10 km E of Hopa on a pass over the mountains, 41.4027 41.5049, 600 m alt., 21.7.1988, MENK (6) ; Çoruh, Cankertasan between Hopa and BorÇka, 09.07.1993, LIEB (4) ; Ancer Yayla (ubi?), VIII.1973, RÄH (1); Tirebolu, valley of the Dogankent Çayi , 7 km upstream the delta at the road to Torul, 40.9537 38.8651, 11.7.1986, MENK (2) ; ditto, 24.7.1988, MENK ; at the bridge over the Yomra Deresi, E of Yomra, 40.9525 39.8674, 10 m alt., NMBE 505485 /2.

Diagnosis: shells usually of large size, with a brownish to greenish periostracum, teleoconch with light to heavy axial ribs and a prominent microsculpture, usually with separate spiral bands, thin white apertural lip, umbilicus closed.

Description: shell of medium to very large size, depressed spherical, reddish-, greenish- to chestnut-brown; protoconch small in relation to the complete shell, consisting of 2 large whorls with microscopic warts and wrinkles; teleoconch with a brown-yellow to -green periostracum, usually lost in many adult shells; teleoconch of 3–4 whorls; shell sculpture with irregularly arranged light to heavy axial ribs, intersected by a prominent microsculpture of minute beads, microsculpture usually prominent on the second whorl of the teleoconch, often fading out on the following whorls; banding pattern consisting of four to five spiral bands with No. 1 very small, No. 2 and 3 broadly fused, No. 4 and 5 separate; aperture broadly rounded to transversally widened with a thin white lip inside; columellar triangle small; juvenile and subadult shells slitlike umbilicated, adult shells with a closed umbilicus.

Genital organs ( Fig. 73 ): penis cylindrical, somewhat longer than the epiphallus; flagellum reaching double the length epiphallus+penis or longer ( Mumladze & al. 2008); mrp attaching in a central position on the epiphallus; internally, pp1 well developed, with a central perforation, penial chamber elongate, pp2 of the same size as pp1 with a central perforation, smooth on the surface; atrial stimulator a thick, rounded pilaster; female system with a short vaginal tube, dart sac and glandulae mucosae well developed, glandulae with a short basic stem, branching into 12–15 tubes, usually as long as the dart sac; pedunculus stem very long with a short diverticulum, bursa copulatrix stem much shorter than pedunculus stem, vesicle of bursa copulatrix elliptical.

Distribution ( Fig. 74 ): Helix buchii seems to be restricted to the northeastern coastal part of Turkey, and to Georgia and Armenia.

Remarks: The Khanitskali may be identical with the river nowadays called Tskhenistskali, a right tributary of the Rion in Georgia. Dubois de Montpéreux reports H. buchii from "5 ou 6 mille pieds du niveau de la mer", this means at an altitude of 1.500 to 1.800 m which would restrict the typical area to the upper reach of this river NE of Kutais on the southern slopes of the Caucasus.

In 2008, Mumladze & al. described a new Helix species, H. goderdziana , from Adsharia, Georgia. Sysoev & Schileyko (2009) relegated this species into the synonymy of H. buchii , because all traits used for the separation of H. goderdziana from H. buchii are subject to great variation, and so are not species specific at all (see also Tab. 1). Recently, Mumladze & al. (2013) revisited the problem using a combination of morphometry and molecular methods ( COI and ITS-1). As a conclusion they claim that H. goderdziana has to be considered a separate species, which is widely overlooked, misinterpreted, and widespread in the area. In my opinion, the conclusions of the authors are incorrect for several reasons: 1) the authors apply multivariate methods, in particular principal component analysis ( PCA) and multivariate analysis of variance ( MANOVA), for analyzing the morphometric variation based on 28 specimens and 31 distance variables. This means that out of the total number of 31 principal components, 4 have zero variance, simply because they use merely 28 specimens. The zero variances of these components allow no meaningful interpretation and such an analysis is highly dubious (e.g., Flury & Riedwyl 1988: 198); 2) according to Tabachnick & Fidell (2007: 250), each cell in a MANOVA design should have more cases than dependent variables ( DV) which means that for comparing four species, a minimum of 124 specimens is required. The authors, however, compare 28 specimens ( H. buchii = 13, H. goderdziana = 7, H. pomatia = 4, H. lucorum = 4), which are unacceptably low figures yielding no reliable result; 3) in our genetic analysis of the group we also used the tissues from the populations of H. goderdziana , but here these specimens clearly cluster within the H. buchii clade (Korábek & al. submitted). In case, increasing knowledge based on a much better specimen sampling should result in a separated position of H. goderdziana , the name Helix (Helicogena) buchii var. adsharica KOBELT, 1906 , would take over precendence because of priority. Comparing the type specimen of adsharica presented here ( Fig. 69) with the figures supplied in Mumladze & al. (2008) leaves no doubt about their conspecificity.

This is one of the largest Helix species, which, however, can vary enormously in size. The largest specimens reach diameters of> 60 mm, originating from humid and densely vegetated environments like the higher Pontic Mountains in east Turkey and the Lesser Caucasus ( Mumladze & al. 2008; own observations). However, in the western part of the Pontic Mountains, the shell sizes decrease considerably ( Table 1).

Figures

Figs 1–9. Helix (Helix) pomatia LINNAEUS, 1758. Fig. 1 compacta, syntype SMF 9573, D = 50.07, Hungary "Gestrüppe der Berglehnen"; Fig. 2 pulskyana, syntype SMF 9525/2a, Hungary "Inseln der Donau", D = 36.6; Fig. 3 hajnaldiana, syntype SMF 9658, Hungary "Budapest, im botanischen Garten", D = 34.1; Fig. 4 solitaria, syntype SMF 74708/2a, D = 31.1; Fig. 5 sabulosa, syntype SMF 9524, D = 40.5, Fig. 6 expansilabris, holotype SMF 9538, D = 45.5; Fig. 7 luteola, holotype SMF 9527, D = 34.6; Fig. 8 pannonica, lectotype SMF 9535, D = 40.5, Fig. 9 lednicensis, syntype SMF 9534/2a, D = 38.3. — All photos Neubert, original size.

Fig. 73. Helix (Helix) buchii DUBOIS DE MONTPéREUx, 1839. Genital organs, NMBE 505485, Turkey, Yomra, Situs 48.79. — All photos Neubert.

Fig. 74. Helix (Helix) buchii DUBOIS DE MONTPéREUx, 1839. Distribution.