Tudicla hoernesi ( Stur, 1870 )

Harzhauser, Mathias & Landau, Bernard M., 2024, The Colubrariidae, Eosiphonidae, Melongenidae, Pisaniidae, Prodotiidae and Tudiclidae (Gastropoda, Buccinoidea) of the Miocene Paratethys Sea, Zootaxa 5427 (1), pp. 1-110 : 61-62

Tudicla hoernesi ( Stur, 1870)

Figs 30D–E , 31B

Pyrula rusticula Bast. —Hörnes 1853 (pars): 266, pl. 27, figs 8–10 [non Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot, 1825) ]. * Pyrula Hörnesi n. sp. — Stur 1870: 306 [nov. nom. pro Pyrula rusticula in Hörnes 1853: pl. 27, figs 8–10]. [ Tudicla rusticula ] ditena de Greg. — De Gregorio 1885b: 50 [nov. nom. pro. Pyrula rusticula Hörnes 1853 : pl. 27, fig. 8). [ Tudicla rusticula ] trota de Greg. — De Gregorio 1885b: 50 [nov. nom. pro. Pyrula rusticula Hörnes 1853 : pl. 27, fig. 9). Pyrula (Spirilla) Hoernesi Stur —Hoernes & Auinger 1890: 243. T [udicla]. (T [udicla].) rusticula hoernesi Stur — Sieber 1958: 154. non Pyrula (Tudicla) rusticula Bast. var. Hoernesi Stur — Schaffer 1912: 138, pl. 49, figs 34–37 [= Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot,

1825)]. non Tudicla rusticula hoernesi (Stur 1871) — Hölzl 1958: 252 [= Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot, 1825) ]. non Tudicla (Tudicla) hoernesi ( Stur, 1870) — Steininger et al. 1971: 403, pl. 11, fig. 2 [= Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot,

1825)].

Type material. Lectotype (designated herein): NHMW 1855 /0045/0908, SL: 49.9 mm, MD: 29.5 mm, Baden-Sooss ( Austria), Figs 30D 1 –D 3 . Paralectotype: NHMW 1851 /0013/0021, SL: 31.9 mm , MD: 34.9 mm, Bad Vöslau, illustrated in Hörnes (1853: pl. 27, fig. 8), holotype of Tudicla rusticula ditena De Gregorio 1885b , Figs 30E 1 –E 2 .

Illustrated material. NHMW 1997z0178/1115, SL: 41.4 mm, MD: 29.3 mm, Bad Vöslau ( Austria), Figs 31B .

Additional material. 8 spec., NMW 1868 /0001/0036, Baden-Sooss ( Austria) ; 1 spec. NHMW 1863 /0004/0627, Sainte-Maure-de-Touraine ( France) .

Revised description. Medium-sized shell of up to five teleoconch whorls; apical angle 95°, rapidly increasing to 120–130° on late teleoconch whorls. Protoconch only partly preserved, mammillate. First teleoconch whorl smooth, with coronate carina placed just above abapical suture. Subsutural ramp faintly convex, becoming slightly concave on second teleoconch whorl. Carina at abapical suture from second teleoconch whorl onwards largely covered by subsequent whorl. Last whorl high, attaining 92–95% of total height, with broad, shallow, weakly convex subsutural ramp; periphery with two rounded angulations; shoulder angulation slightly stronger; basal angulation weak; base very strongly constricted below basal angulation; sculpture of numerous, low, close-set spiral cords separated by narrower interspaces, more strongly developed at junction between base and fasciole; fasciole almost smooth. Aperture elongate, pyriform. Columellar callus hardly thickened, forming narrow rim, poorly delimited, small parietal pad developed adapically. Columella strongly excavated mid-aperture, with broad, prominent parietal fold bearing about five delicate lirae weakening adapically. Anal canal narrowly incised accentuated by prominent parietal fold. Outer lip thin with numerous lirae starting some distance behind peristome, extending deep within aperture, and weakening inwards. Siphonal canal extraordinarily long, straight, narrow.

Paratethyan synonyms. De Gregorio (1885b) overlooked that Stur (1870) had already provided a name for this species and introduced Tudicla rusticula ditena as new name for the specimen illustrated in Hörnes (1853: pl. 27, fig. 8), which is the lectotype of Tudicla hoernesi . In addition, De Gregorio, 1885b introduced Tudicla rusticula trota for the specimen illustrated in Hörnes (1853: pl. 27, fig. 9), which is a paralectotype of T. hoernesi . Therefore, Tudicla ditena De Gregorio, 1885b and Tudicla trota are objective junior synonyms of T. hoernesi .

Discussion. Tudicla hoernesi ( Stur, 1870) differs from Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot, 1825) in its convex last whorl and lack of distinct angulations and tubercles. It develops a small parietal callus with a narrowly incised anal canal. Moreover, the early teleoconch of Tudicla hoernesi differs from Tudicla rusticula by the presence of only one carinate teleoconch whorl, as the carina is already covered by the subsequent whorl on the second teleoconch whorl. The most distinctive feature separating the two is the peculiar columellar fold of Tudicla hoernesi , which bears several delicate lirae. Aside from these conchological features, both species were separated ecologically. Tudicla hoernesi is restricted to deep water occurrences and has not been detected in any shallow water assemblages where Tudicla rusticula occurs in large numbers. So far, Tudicla hoernesi is only known from the Langhian of the Paratethys and the northeastern Atlantic.

Paleoenvironment. The occurrences in the Baden Formation of the Vienna Basin suggest middle to outer neritic environments in up to 250 m water depth ( Kranner et al. 2021).

Distribution in Central Paratethys. Badenian (Middle Miocene); Vienna Basin: Baden, Baden-Sooss, Bad Vöslau ( Austria) (hoc opus).

Northeastern Atlantic: Langhian (Middle Miocene): Touraine: Sainte-Maure-de-Touraine ( France).

Genus Euthriofusus Cossmann, 1901

Type species. Fasciolaria burdigalensis de Basterot, 1825 ; original designation by Cossmann (1901: 27). Early Miocene, France.

Original diagnosis. “ Club shape; bent columella; siphonal canal straight, long, narrowed at its beginning.” ( Cossmann 1901: 27, translated from French).

Discussion. Euthriofusus was placed in Tudiclidae by Lozouet (2021) based on similarities of the early teleoconchs of Euthriofusus burdigalensis and Tudicla rusticula . Lozouet documented a much higher, and yet unresolved, diversity of Euthriofusus in the Oligocene and Miocene of Europe than previously thought. Especially Euthriofusus burdigalensis seems to be a species complex, as suggested by the different protoconch morphologies (see Lozouet 2021: text-fig. 7).

Euthriofusus occurs from the Oligocene to Middle Miocene in the Circum-Mediterranean region. The Oligocene Euthriofusus naricus Vredenburg, 1925 , from Pakistan, and the Early Miocene Fusus subregularis d’Archiac & Haime, 1854 , from India, listed by Harzhauser et al. (2007) as that genus, are poorly preserved and the identifications will need verification (see d’Archiac & Haime 1854: pl. 29, fig. 14; Vredenburg 1925: pl. 7, figs 4, 6). Pliocene occurrences in the Indo-West Pacific, such as Euthriofusus inopinatus Cossmann, 1903 , from India, and Euthriofusus wanneri P.J. Fischer, 1927 , from Timor, are based on misidentifications (van Regteren Altena 1948).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Measurements for shell morphology; AA: apical angle, SL: shell length, MD: maximum diameter, LWH: last whorl height, AH: aperture height, AL: aperture length, AW: aperture width.

FIGURE 2. Colubraria subobscura (Hoernes & Auinger, 1884). A1–A3. NHMW 1854/0035/0170, paralectotype, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania). B1–B2. NHMW 1859/0037/0018a, paralectotype, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania). C1–C3. NHMW 1865/0001/0183, paralectotype, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania). D1–D2. NHMW 1859/0037/0018b, paralectotype, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania). E1–E3. NHMW 1874/0025/0021, lectotype, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania). F1–F2. NHMW 2023/0338/0001, paralectotype, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania).

FIGURE 3. A. Colubraria subobscura (Hoernes & Auinger, 1884), NHMW 2023/0338/0002, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania). B. Metula kovacsi nov. sp., NHMW 1867/0019/0078, holotype, CoŞteiu de Sus (Romania). C1–C2. Metula aliceae nov. sp. NHMW 1846/0037/0277a, paratype, Baden (Austria).

FIGURE 30. Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot, 1825). A1–A2. NHMW 1852/0012/0026, Grund (Austria). B1–B2. NHMW 1848/0003/0072, Niederkreuzstetten (Austria). C1–C2. NHMW 1878/0041/0009, Vienna/Pötzleinsdorf (Austria). Tudicla hoernesi (Stur, 1870). D1–D3. NHMW 1855/0045/0908, lectotype, Baden-Sooss (Austria). E1–E2. NHMW 1851/0013/0021, paralectotype, Bad Vöslau (Austria).

FIGURE 31. A. Tudicla rusticula (de Basterot, 1825), NHMW 1997z0178/1116, Bad Vöslau (Austria). B. Tudicla hoernesi (Stur, 1870), NHMW 1997z0178/1115, Bad Vöslau (Austria).