Untitled

276
in order to facilitate future discussion of lineage-specific
dynamics. Many of these have been proposed
not necessarily advocate,
by previous authors [, .]. I do
or even believe in, the ranking hierarchy; however, because
cowrie systematics is replete with ranked names,
I
adopt much of the terminology again to maintain con-
sistency".
^°^ Paraphyletic family in Meyer's (2003) cladistic analysis.
108 Classification ofLittorinidae after Reid (1989).
105 Contents and classification of Pickworthiidae after Le
Renard & Beuchet (unpublished).
" An application to give Pomatiidae Newton the prece-
dence of Cyclostomatidae will be submitted to the ICZN.
1" Inclusion of Annulariinae as a subfamily of Pomatiidae
follows Reid (1989), However, there are important dif-
ferences in the operculum of the Old World (Pomatiinae)
and New World (Annulariinae) clades, and Neubert
(pers. com.) thinks that future work may likely result in
ranking them as two families
112 The name Licininae has prionty over Annulaninae. How-
ever, we believe that Annulariinae / -idae, which is in
prevailing usage, should be conserved and an applica-
tion will be submitted to the ICZN to that effect.
Annulariinae cannot be protected by application of Art.
23.9 because Licininae / -idae has been used sporadi-
cally after 1899 (e.g., by Golikov & Starobogatov 1 975;
Sitnikova & Starobogatov 1982) Furthermore Licininae
Gray, 1857 is a homonym of Licininae Bonelli, 1810
[Coleóptera], which is rather much used
n-' Placement of Pseudotritonium in Purpurinidae after
Bändel (1994).
Il"* The oldest family-group name for this taxon is
Sigaretidae Gray, 1827, which has priority over
Naticidae. Because the name Sigaretinae has been
occasionally used (see next Note), it cannot be elimi-
nated by automatic application of Art. 23.9 of the Code.
Usage of Naticidae can be continued by placing
Sigaretidae on the Official Index, and an application
will be submitted to the ICZN to that effect.
115 The valid name for the subfamily is controversial. Un-
der Art. 23.9, the name Cryptostomidae, which has not
been used as valid after 1899, qualifies as nomen
oblitum, whereas Sininae, which has been used in at
least 25 publications, qualifies as nomen protectum.
However, the conditions of Art. 23.9 are not met to pro-
tect Sininae against Sigaretinae, which has priority; it
has sporadically been used as a valid name (e.g., Pon-
der & Waren, 1988; Sabelli et al., 1990; Millard, 1996:
120; Macedo et al., 1999). Usage of Sininae will be
continued if Sigaretini is placed on the Official Index
(see preceding Note), and an application will be sub-
mitted to the ICZN to that effect
11^ Classification based on Newman (in Beesley et al., 1998).
11'' Classification based on Ponder & Waren (1988). Alter-
native classification, see Starobogatov & Sitnikova (1 983).
BOUCHET&ROCROI
11® Classification largely based on Ponder (1985a).
110 Amnicolidae given family status based on the molecu-
lar analyses of Wilke et al. (2000, 2001 ) and Liu et al.
(2001). The group has usually been treated as a sub-
family of Hydrobiidae but is recognised as a family by
Wilke et al (2001).
120 Erhaiini originally included in Pomatiopsidae, here in-
cluded in Amnicolidae based on the molecular results
of Wilke et al. (2000) and Wilke et al. (2001 ).
121 Baicaliinae was given family rank by Hausdorf et al
(2003) but Wilke (2004) and Szarowska & Wilke (2004)
show that this group is contained within the Amnicolidae.
122 Recognition of Emmericiinae as a subfamily of Amni-
colidae follows Hershler and Holsinger (1990).
123 Reversal of precedence. See Nomenclátor.
12"* Classification based on Fukuda & Ponder (2003). Their
"group 2" is here formally recognised as subfamily Eka-
dantinae
125 We allocate family status to Cochliopidae on the basis
of the molecular results of Wilke et al, (2001) and Liu et
al. (2001) and tentatively allocate subfamily status to
the three informal groups recognised by Hershler & Thompson
(1992) as these groupings are also
demonstated as clades using COI sequences (Liu et
al., 2001).
126 Heppell (1995) placed Helicostoidae, a monotypic family
from the Yang Tze Kiang, in the Vermetoidea, which is
very unlikely. Examination (by P. Bouchet) of the origi-
nal material is inconclusive, but a position in Rissooidea
is currently the best hypothesis.
12'' The classification of the family-group taxa included in
this grouping are in urgent need of revision. The
Hydrobiidae, as here envisaged, is certainly not a monophyletic
clade. Recognition of Pseudamnicolinae,
Islamiinae and Belgrandiinae as subfamilies based on
molecular evidence (Wilke et al., 2001 ).
128 Wilke et al. (2001 ) tentatively used this name for a clade
including Cincinnatia and Notogillia.
129 The Pyrgulinae were given family status by Hausdorf
et al. (2003) but this has been challenged by Wilke
(2004) who showed that Pyrgula is a hydrobiid
130 Lithoglyphus forms a sister group relationship with
Amnícola in the analysis of Liu et al. (2001). It is
recognised as a family by Wilke et al. (2001) and
Hausdorf et al. (2003). Lepyriidae included here follow-
ing Thompson (1984).
131 Benedictiinae included as a subfamily of Lithoglyphidae
following Hausdorfetal. (2003).
132 Mesocochliopa was originally classified as a genus of
Amnicolidae by Yen & Reeside (1946) and was also
listed as a genus of the Hydrobiidae sensu lato by Kabat
& Hershler (1993). Yu (1987) did not sufficiently