Untitled

WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF THE GASTROPODA 275
Inclusion of Acanthonematidae after Nützel (1998). For
alternative classification, see Golikov & Starobogatov
(1987). Bändel (2002b) united Littorinimorpha, Cerithiomorpha
and Orthonematoidea in an order Palaeocaeno-
gastropoda.
* Bittiinae is recognised as a subfamily by Houbrick(1993)
and this is supported by molecular data of Lydeard et
al. (2002) whose results show that it is not even monophyletic
with Cerithiidae in some of their trees. Gründel
(1976a) considered this group to be member of the
Procerithiidae.
8'' Synonymy after Lozouet (1986).
^ "There is the possibility that Maoraxis may not belong
to the Cerithioidea but to the Cerithiopsoidea" (Bändel
et al., 2000).
^s Metacerithium was transferred to Campanilidae by Kiel
et al. (2000), but on the basis of a species erroneously
attributed to that genus. Metacerithiidae will be treated
as a separate family of Cerithioidea by Kollmann (pers.
comm.) in the forthcoming Cretaceous Gastropods part
of the "Révision Critique de la Paléontologie Française"
(J. . Fischer, ed., 1997).
3° Faunus placed in Melanopsidae by Houbrick (1991a),
placed here in Pachychilidae based on Strong & Glaub-
recht (2000) and Lydeard et al (2002).
3' Molecular data (West & Michel, 2000; Wilson et al.,
2004) place Cleopatra within the Lake Tanganyika
paludomid radiation. However, Cleopatra stands outside
that radiation when characters of the reproductive system
are considered (Strong, pers. comm).
^ The discrete monophyletic groups of Lake Tanganyika
taxa recognized by Wilson et al. (2004) are here ranked
as tribes within Hauttecoeuriinae (based on Haut-
tecoeuria, a junior synonym of Tanganyicia), which is
the oldest name available for a Lake Tanganyika paludomid.
The Tiphobiini may be paraphyletic, based on
morphology, the other tribes are supported as monophyletic
by both morphology (Strong, pers comm.) and
molecular data. Tanganyicia. which clusters with the
Syrnolopsini, is here ranked as a separate tribe based
on Strong & Glaubrecht (2002).
^ Asian Semisulcospirinae treated here as subfamily of
Pleuroceridae based on morphological data (Glaubrecht,
1996) Molecular data (Lydeard et al., 2002) suggest
that it might be ranked as independent family, with relationships
to western North America pleurocerines and
European melanopsids still unclear
^ Nützel (2002b) suggested that Argyropeza Melvill &
Standen, 1901 is a procerithiid based on comparisons
with Crypaulax, whereas Houbrick (1980) treated it as
a cerithiid (Cerithiinae) The relationship of the Jurassic
procerithiids with the younger taxa is uncertain and the
family is maintained as a separate one pending further
studies.
^5 Bändel & Kowaike (1997) suggested that Prostyliferidae
is related to Pickworthiidae.
s^ Synonymy after Strong (pers. comm.) based on ana-
tomical data by Binder (1959).
^'' The family Diozoptyxidae has hitherto been included in
the Nerinoidea, but this is due to Cossmann's erroneous
interpretation of d'Orbigny's illustration of Nennea
monilifera. the type species of DIozoptyxis, when he
established the genus Cossmann erroneously inter-
preted the species to have one palatal and two columel-
lar plaits; in fact, its aperture agrees well with that of
other Campanilidae, from which it differs by the nodular
spiral cords (Kollmann, pers. comm.). Under Art. 41, the
case should be brought to the Commission, but this
would be of purely academic interest, as Diozoptyxidae
is either a synonym of Campanilidae (as interpreted here)
or of Nerineidae Ptygmatidinae (as understood earlier).
Gymnocerithium placed by Kollmann (pers comm.) in
Campanilidae based on its massive shell, low whorls,
twisted siphonal canal, concave short columella, and
broad siphonal fold present on the last adult whorl; dif-
fering from Campanile by its opisthocline growth lines
(opisthocyrt in Campanile), and the lack of a parietal plait.
* Contents and synonymy of Ampullinidae after Lozouet
et al (2001) and Kase & Ishikawa (2003). Position in
Campaniloidea based on anatomical data on Globularia
fluctuata (Kase, 1990; Healy, pers. comm., sperm mor-
phology), but Ampullinoidea treated as distinct super-
family by Lozouet et al. (2001 ).
"^ Placed in Campaniloidea by Pacaud & Le Renard
(1 995) based on similarity of protoconchs of Trypanaxis
and Campanile.
^°° Includes Littorinimorpha, Ptenoglossa, and Neogastro-
poda.
^°^ Placement of Coelostylinidae and Settsassiidae uncer-
tain [Cerithioidea? Littorinoidea?]. The type species of
Coelostylina resembles a purpurinid, early, simple
aporrhaid, or even a buccinid, but other genera included
in this family by Wenz are clearly not related.
'°2 Littorinimorpha, Cerithiomorpha and Palaeostyloidea
[as Orthonematoidea] united by Bändel (2002b) in or-
der Palaeocaenogastropoda.
^°3 Contents and classification after Ponder & Waren (1988).
Alternative classification in Bändel & Riedel (1994b).
'** Segregation of Capulidae in its own superfamily follows
Ponder (in Beesley et al. 1998) The echinospira larva
of the Capulidae suggests they may form a monophyl-
etic group with the Velutinoidea.
^°^ Classification after Ponder (1 988) and Ponder & Waren
(1988)
^* Classification after Meyer (2003) for modern taxa with
input from Dolin (pers. comm.) for fossil ones. The name
Conocypraeinae Schilder, 1 936 cannot be placed in the
classification because its type genus is based on an
unrecognizable internal mold of a cowrie from the Italian
Eocene. Meyer (2003) himself was critical of this highly
dissected classification and stressed: "I propose to main-
tain a number of tribal names for well-supported clades