Species Names of J.-R. Bourguignat and Their Application in Current Taxonomy of Fresh-Water Gastropods of the Russian Fauna T.Ya
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Бюллетень Дальневосточного The Bulletin of the Russian малакологического общества Far East Malacological Society 2012, вып. 15/16, с. 87–116 2012, vol. 15/16, pp. 87–116 Species names of J.-R. Bourguignat and their application in current taxonomy of fresh-water gastropods of the Russian fauna T.Ya. Sitnikova1, P.V. Kijashko2, A.V. Sysoev3 1Limnological Institute, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk 664033, Russia e-mail: [email protected] 2Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St.-Petersburg 199034, Russia 3Zoological Museum, Moscow State University, Moscow 125009, Russia Twenty two species of gastropods described by French malacologist J.-R. Bourguignat and recognized as valid in the fauna of Russia and the former USSR are illustrated with the type specimens and recently collected material. Each species is provided with data on (1) syntypes, or, at their absence, specimens iden- tified by Bourguignat; (2) a brief history of the name application as mentioned in the Russian literature; (3) published records of the species distribution; (4) taxonomic remarks. It appears that many species of the Russian fauna were erroneously identified due to the lack of access to the type material. Key words: J.-R. Bourguignat, Gastropoda, fresh-water species, type material, taxonomy, Russian fauna. Видовые названия Ж.-Р. Бургинья и их использование в современной систематике пресноводных брюхоногих моллюсков фауны России Т.Я. Ситникова1, П.В. Кияшко2, А.В. Сысоев3 1Лимнологический институт СО РАН, Иркутск 664033, Россия e-mail: [email protected] 2Зоологический институт РАН, С.-Петербург 199034, Россия 3Зоологический музей МГУ, Москва 125009, Россия Для двадцати двух видов брюхоногих моллюсков, описанных французским малакологом Ж.-Р. Бургинья и признанных валидными в фауне России и бывшего СССР, приведены иллюстрации типовых и собранных впоследствие с указанной территории экземпляров. Для каждого вида при- ведены данные по (1) синтипам или, при их отсутствии, экземплярам, идентицифированным самим Бургинья; (2) краткой истории использования видовых названий в русской литературе; (3) опубли- кованным находкам и географическому распространению; (4) таксономические замечания. Пока- зано, что многие виды фауны России были ошибочно определены вследствие отсутствия доступа к типовым материалам. Ключевые слова: Ж.-Р. Бургинья, брюхоногие моллюские, пресноводные воды, типовой материал, фауна России. 87 Jules-René Bourguignat was at any descriptions of new species. It is known rate an eminent European malacologist; that his massive descriptions of new spe- even though his taxonomic heritage has cies, irrespective of being well-grounded or been controversially appraised by subse- not, were universally criticized by various quent scholars (see a review in: [Dance, authors who believed that the gastropod 1970]). Hundreds and hundreds of conti- fauna of Europe in a broad sense (to the nental species described by Bourguignat Urals and even farther) has been long have been synonymized and then retrieved ago described completely. Starobogatov from synonymy and vice versa, although mostly used those names of Bourguignat there seems to be a trend of recognition which were accompanied by good quality of species names as valid, as concerning illustrations. fresh-water gastropod species described Needless to say, Starobogatov and his within the framework of the «nouvelle disciples had no access (and regretfully école» (that is, by Bourguignat and his could not have it at the time of the «iron disciples) [Bouchet, 2002]. curtain») to the type material of Bourguig- Bourguignat mostly dealt with faunas nat. Thus, there could be some doubts in quite distant from Russia. Naturally, the the reasons for identification of the Rus- comprehensive review of Russian fresh- sian fauna species as those described by water fauna of the 1950th [Shadin, 1952] Bourguignat, especially because the latters lists only two Bourguignat’s species as have been often described from localities valid: Choanomphalus amauronius Bour- quite distant from what is currently treated guignat, 1860 (simply because it has been as the species range in Russia. described from Lake Baikal) and Hydro- Recently, the senior author happened bia longiscata (Bourguignat, 1856) (with to examine the Bourguignat collection at a query for Central Asian localities). the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva However, with the onset of a new era of (MHNG) and to photograph the species re- Russian fresh-water malacology asso- levant to the Russian fauna. Therefore, the ciated with Ya.I. Starobogatov and his goal of the present paper was to illustrate school, the species names of Bourguig- these types together with shells identified nat became being progressively applied as Bourguignat’s species by Starobogatov to species of the Russian fauna, having and/or his disciples and mostly stored in resulted in recognition of more than 30 the Zoological Institute of Russian Aca- of Bourguignat’s species treated as valid demy of Sciences, St.-Petersburg (ZIN). [Kantor, Sysoev, 2005]. We hope that this publication will provide One reason of using the names of a more firm basis for the formal naming of Bourguignat by Starobogatov was to avoid species of the Russian fresh-water fauna. Taxonomic account Family Neritidae Rafinesque, 1815 Theodoxus fluviatilis var. subthermalis Bourguig- nat – Issel, 1865: 22–23. Theodoxus subthermalis Type localit y. Not stated (Lac de (Bourguignat in Issel, 1865) Paleostomi, près de Poti, Georgie – loca- Fig. 1 A–F lity of syntypes). 88 T y p e s. 7 syntypes, MHNG, Bour- as Th. subthermalis found along eastern guignat collection, No. 11737. coast of the Black and Azov seas should H i s t o r y of the name applica t i o n . be described as a new species, whereas Theodoxus subthermalis – Shadin, 1952 (key the validity of Th. subthermalis and its to identification, shell description, distribution); – Anistratenko, 1998 (key to identification, actual range require additional studies. illustrations, distribution); It can appear that true Th. subthermalis – Anistratenko et al., 1999 (shell description, is a local endemic of western maritime key to identification, distribution); Georgia. – Starobogatov et al., 2004 (key to identifica- tion, distribution); Family Bellamyidae Rohrbach, 1937 – Yildirim et al., 2006 (distribution); – Anistratenko et al., 2008 (distribution); Amuropaludina chloantha – Kantor, Sysoev, 2005; Kantor et al., 2009 (Bourguignat, 1860) (information about types, type locality and gene- ral distribution). Fig. 1G–I General distributio n. Lakes Vivipara chloantha Bourguignat, 1860b: 534, of the Caucasus (Transcaucasia) and the pl. 24, figs. 5–7. eastern coast of the Black and Azov seas; Type localit y. «Divers affluents Iran, possibly Turkey. de l’Amour moyen» [Far East of Russia]. R e m a r k s. Taxonomic history of T y p e s. 1 syntype, MHNG, Bour- the species in the Russian fauna is un- guignat collection, No. 4734. clear. Shadin was probably the first who History of the name application . introduced this species name to our fauna. Amuropaludina chloanta – Moskvicheva, Shadin’s [1952] concept was not illustra- 1979 (shell description, distribution); ted. However, it is well seen (Fig. 1) that – Bogatov, Zatrawkin, 1990 (shell descrip- tion, key to identification, ecology, distribution); the shells regarded to be that species in – Prozorova, 2000 (distribution in Lake the ZIN collection (Shadins’s identifica- Khanka drainage); tion) differ from the syntypes in the shell – Starobogatov et al., 2004 (key to identifica- shape. Moreover, the next published re- tion, distribution); cord [Anistratenko, 1998] refers also to – Kantor, Sysoev, 2005; Kantor et al., 2009 a different species, as can be seen from (information about the types, type locality and a comparison of our Fig. 1A, B and Anis- general distribution). tratenko’s [1998, pl. 1, fig. 5a, b] illustra- General distributio n. Amur tion which shows a shell rather squarish basin, excluding upper part of Zeya basin; in the frontal plane, not rhomboidal as in in rivers and running lakes. the syntypes of subthermalis. Anistraten- R e m a r k s. Specimens of A. chloanta ko [1998], Anistratenko et al. [1999] identified by I. Moskvicheva and stored in and Starobogatov et al. [2004] adopt the the ZIN (Fig. 1I) correspond well to the main distinguishing character of the spe- syntype of this species in the shell shape. cies as being the width of aperture plus The syntype looks as immature specimen columellar shield not exceeding 0.64 with thin aperture edges, narrow umbili- of the shell width. However, this index cus, and remained embryonal shell, which is more than 0.7 in the syntypes of the is not characteristic of adult, mature speci- species. Probably, specimens regarded mens of Amuropaludina. 89 90 Amuropaludina pachya Family Melanopsidae (Bourguignat, 1860) H. et A. Adams, 1854 Fig. 1J–M Esperiana berlani Vivipara pachya Bourguignat, 1860b: 532–533, (Bourguignat, 1884) pl. 24, figs. 1–2. Fig. 2A–C Type localit y. «Le flueve Amo- Fagotia (Esperiana) berlani Bourguignat, 1884: ur» [Far East of Russia]. 34–35. T y p e s. 1 syntype, MHNG, Bour- Type localit y. «Le Danube à guignat collection, No. 4741. Ibraila; la Save entre Agram et Sissek» History of the name applicatio n . [Danube at Braila, Romania; Sava River Amuropaludina pachya – Moskvicheva, between Zagreb and Sisak, Croatia]. 1979 (shell description, distribution); T y p e s. 2 syntypes, MHNG, Bour- – Bogatov, Zatrawkin, 1990 (shell descrip- tion, ecology, distribution); guignat