Untitled

WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF THE GASTROPODA 279
recognized that the name Nerinea is available from
Deshayes, 1827, and not from Defrance, 1825 (who
had only used the vernacular "Nérine"), and its type
species is N. mosae Deshayes, 1827, by monotypy,
and not N. tuberculosa as generally accepted. For
Nerinea of authors, Cox (1949) established Eunerinea,
type species Nerinea castor d'Orbigny, 1850. This
shifted the taxonomic extension of Nerinea to what had
earlier been called Ptygmatis. However, because Cox
treated Eunerinea as a subgenus of Nerinea. and recognized
a single family of nerines, this was without consequence
on the taxonomical extension of the name
Nerineidae (which Zittel had based on "Nerinea
Defrance, 1825"). Up until 1960, all nerines except
Centella continued to be classified in a single family
Nerineidae
After 1 959, the Russian school established no less than
31 family-group names for nerines. In the very influen-
tial Osnovy Paleóntologa, Pchelintsev (1960) did not
follow Cox' nomenclatural correction and continued to
use "Nerinea Defrance, 1825", with "/. tuberculosa
Defrance, 1825" as type species. For the real Nerinea
Deshayes, 1827, the Russian authors used Fibulop-
tygmatis Pechelintsev, 1965, with the same type spe-
cies. Lyssenko (1984) and Lyssenko & Korotkov (1992)
classified the nerines in 11 superfamilies and 20 fami-
lies, with the taxa attributable to Nennea and Eunerin-
ea placed in different superfamilies, but they kept using
Nerinea in the sense of Defrance [- Eunerinea], and
Fibuloptygmatis in the sense of Nennea Deshayes.
Even in the more conservative classification which is
proposed here, Nerinea and Eunennea end up in dif-
ferent families, with Eunerinea consubfamilial with Upel-
la, Simploptyxis, Diptyxis and Oligoptyxis. This has the
unfortunate nomenclatural consequence that the valid
name for the subfamily including Eunerinea is Diptyxi-
nae, a rather obscure name based on a rather poorly
understood genus. Continuity in the meaning of the
name Nerineidae is threatened by the shift of type spe-
cies of Nerinea and, under Art 41 , the case should be
brought to the Commission. We believe that it would
be far more preferable (1) to abandon altogether the
name Nerineidae, which is now fraught with confusion,
(2) establish a new family-group name based on Eunerinea
with the precedence of Nerineidae, i.e. 1873,
(3) use Ptygmatididae for the family containing the true
Nerinea We will submit an application to the ICZN to
that effect.
^^^ Classification of Pyramidellidae after Schänder et al.
(1999), but categories downgraded one rank.
^^ The long-established usage of Opisthobranchia in gas-
tropod classifications has been challenged by recent
phylogenetic analyses. Based on morphology,
Mikkelsen (1996) concluded that Opisthobranchia is
monophyletic only when the Acteonidae are removed.
Based on molecular data, Dayrat et al. (2001) found
Opisthobranchia to be paraphyletic, and Grande et al.
(2004) found the Opisthobranchia monophyletic only
when the Sacoglossa are removed.
^83 Mikkelsen (1996) found the Cephalaspidea (with the
exclusion of Acteonoidea and Ringiculoidea) to be a
monophyletic group. Outline of classification afterT E.
Thompson (1976), with modifications by Mikkelsen
(1 996) and Burn & Thompson (in Beesley et al. , 1 998).
^3° Classification after van der Spoel (1976), with modift-
cations (Janssen 1995a).
^^'' Reversal of precedence: see Nomenclátor.
^^2 Reversal of precedence: see Nomenclátor.
^33 Classification after van der Spoel (1976). Suborders
recognized by Newman (in Beesley et al. , 1 998) treated
here as superfamilies.
'''^ Classification after Eales (1984); alternative classifica-
tion, see Willan (in Beesley et al., 1998).
^^5 The name Busiridae is older than Notarchinae, but it
has never been used as valid after its original publica-
tion Although Notarchinae has itself been used less
than 25 times in the last 50 years, we believe that the
name Busirinae should not be resurrected.
1* Recognition of superfamily rank follows Willan (1998).
13^ Three families (Hedylopsidae, Microhedylidae and Aco-
chlidiidae) are classically recognized. Two controversial
classifications (Rankin, 1979; Starobogatov, 1983) have
been proposed recently, but they have not been evalu-
ated since We tentatively follow Starobogatov (1983),
but have downgraded his taxonomic ranks (suborders
to superfamilies, superfamilies to families). An alterna-
tive classification by Burn (in Beesley et al., 1998) for
the Australian species recognizes 2 superfamilies and
5 families.
^^^ Dayrat et al. (2001 ) found Sacoglossa to be basal within
the Euthyneura. According to Grande et al. (2004) this is
a basal group sister to Siphonana and the rest of the
Opisthobranchia. Classification based on Jensen (1996).
^^^ The name Prasinidae has priority over Juliidae. Prasinidae
has been used as valid sporadically after 1 899 (although,
to our knowledge, not at all in the last 50 years), so that
Art. 23.9 cannot be applied to conserve automatically
Juliidae. However, we believe that usage of Juliidae
should be continued for reasons of stability, and an ap-
plication will be submitted to the ICZN to that effect.
200 See Nomenclátor for a history of the name Berthelinii-
nae. The name Tamanovalvidae now has precedence
over Bertheliniinae, although the latter is in prevailing
usage, and Tamanovalva is a subjective synonym of
Berthelinia. However, we believe that usage of Bertheliniinae
should be continued for reasons of stability, and
an application will be submitted to the ICZN to that effect
20' Placobranchidae treated by Burn (in Beesley et al.,
1998) as family separate from Elysiidae.
202 Cylindrobullida treated as sister group of Sacoglossa
by Jensen (1996). Alternatively, treated by Mikkelsen
(1 998) as a member of the Cephalaspidea.
203 Grande et al. (2004) found Umbraculoida to be the sis-
ter clade to the Cephalaspidea (Acteonoidea excluded).
204 Based on molecular data (Grande et al. , 2004),
the Nud-
ibranchia is a polyphyletic group, with Pleurobranchomorpha
being the sister to the Anthobranchia.