Grovesia, DOLIN AND LEDON, 2002

Groves, Lindsey & Squires, Richard L., 2023, Revision of northeast Pacific Paleogene cypraeoidean gastropods, including recognition of three new species: implications for paleobiogeographic distribution and faunal turnover, PaleoBios 40 (10), pp. 1-52 : 28

GROVESIA DOLIN AND LEDON, 2002

Type Species— Prionovolva (Grovesia) ganensis Dolin and Ledon, 2002 , by original designation (of Dolin and Ledon, 2002: p. 334). Lower Eocene (Ypresian), Gan, Pyrénées-Atlantiques Department, France.

Diagnosis— Size small. Shell moderately inflated, can be somewhat narrow and tapered. Dorsum smooth. Fossula auriform. Terminal fold short. Columellar teeth carinated, extending partially across basal face, especially on posterior half of base. Outer lip coarsely denticulate, with short but stout denticles. Siphonal canal open. Posterior (exhalant) canal poorly delimited ( Dolin and Ledon, 2002: p. 334).

Geologic Range— Early Eocene (Yepresian) to late Eocene (Priabonian) ( Fehse, 2021, in part). In the NEP Grovesia ranges from the upper lower Eocene (“Domen- gine Stage”) to middle Eocene (“Tejon Stage”) (new information). Also questionably upper middle Eocene (Priabonian) in Washington (new information) .

Remarks— Dolin and Ledon (2002: p. 334) placed their new subgenus, Grovesia , in the extant genus Prionovolva Iredale, 1930 , but Dolin and Pacaud (2009: pp. 288, 289) recognized Grovesia as a distinct genus. Grovesia mathewsonii (see below) and G. castacensis form a lin- eage (Fig. 1), ranging from the early middle (“Domengine Stage”) to late middle Eocene (“Tejon Stage”) in the NEP region (new information). Fehse (2021) noted that Grovesia ranges from the Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian) to late Eocene (Priabonian). He included the Cretaceous species Cyproglobina aegyptia Schilder, 1932 b and C. strombecki Schilder, 1922 , which are both questionably Grovesia .

Specimens of Grovesia castacensis and G. mathewsonii (below) are many times poorly preserved and identifi- cations were made as ‘best judgements’ by the authors. Throughout the duration of the pandemic it was impos- sible to verify nonfigured identifications cited by Dick- erson (1915, 1916), Anderson and Hanna (1925), and Weaver (1953) in person.