Cainozoic November 2002 Research, 1(1-2) (2001), pp. 129-132, a name for Conradconfusus, replacement Buccinofusus Conrad, 1868, non 1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) Martin+Avery Snyder Research Associate, Department of Malacology, Academy of Natural Sciences ofPhiladelphia, 19th and Benjamin Franklin Park- PA way, Philadelphia, 19103, USA; e-mail: [email protected] Received 6 August 2002; revised version accepted 20 August 2002 The Fusus is for new genus Conradconfusus n. gen., type species parilis Conrad, 1832, proposed as a replacement name Buccinofu- 1868 strata sus Conrad, (non 1866). Twenty-three (sub)species, from Upper Cretaceous and Cainozoic worldwide, may be assigned this to genus. Key words: Mollusca, Gastropoda, Cretaceous, Cainozoic, replacement name, lectotype. Introduction diegoensis and Fusus parilis are not congeneric, and the latter use of the genus name Buccinofusus, probably in Conrad introduced the (1866, p. 17) validly genus Bucci- the neogastropod family Fasciolariidae, requires re- nofusus by the combination Buccinofusus diegoensis placement. (Gabb); the type species, by monotypy, being Tritonium diegoensis Gabb, 1864 (p. 95, pi. 18, fig. 44) from the Eocene of California. The nearly complete holotype, A replacement name which is 14.3 mm in height and 8.5 mm in width, was reported by Stewart (1927, p. 430) to be in the Museum When Conrad (1868) introduced Buccinofusus, he sug- of Paleontology at Berkeley, California (registration gested four possible species as members of this genus, in number 11980). The was noted by Stewart (1927, addition to F. parilis viz. genus , but overlooked Neave p. 430) by (1939-1966). Vaught (1989, p. 50) listed the genus Buccinofusus with the date Buccinum balteatumReeve, 1846 (Recent, Australia); 1866. This probably is an error for 1868 since she listed - Buccinumfusoides Reeve, 1846 (Recent, Japan); Boreofusus Sars, 1878 as a synonym, and that genus is a - Fusus berniciensis King, 1846 (Recent, NE Atlantic); probable synonym of Buccinofusus Conrad, 1868. Hanna Fusus sulcatus Lamarck, 1816 (Pleistocene-Recent, to (1927, p. 319) erroneously reassigned B. diegoensis New Zealand). Latirus de Montfort, 1810, without comment. An addi- tional species, Buccinofusus turneri Weaver, 1942 (p. None ofthese species is congeneric with F. parilis. Fusus 440, pi. 89, figs 1, 2; pi. 101, fig. 13), was described sulcatus was placed in the buccinid Penion Fischer, 1884 from the Eocene ofOregon. by Ponder (1973, p. 416), while B. balteatum was syn- Two years later, Conrad (1868, p. 264) again intro- onymised with Cantharus cecilli (Philippi, 1844) (Buc- This is duced the same genus name Buccinofusus (within the cinidae) by Tryon (1881, p. 157). undoubtedly Muricidae), with type species Fusus parilis Conrad, 1832 incorrect, but B. balteatum is assuredly not assignable to from the Formation transferred the (p. 18, pi. 4, fig. 2), St. Mary’s (Mio- Buccinofusus. Buccinum fusoides was to cene) of Maryland. Moore (1962, p. 83) reported that buccinid Siphonalia A. Adams, 1863 by Kuroda et al. there were nine syntypes of F. parilis in the Academy of (1971, p. 260), whereas F. berniciensis was selected, by Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (registration number original designation, as type species of Troschelia ANSP 13842). Richards (1968, p. 169) described the Morch, 1876 (Buccinidae). lot and An examination Cossmann Fischer same as a holotype paratype [szc]. (1901, p. 33), (1884, p. 615), of this lot reveals a lectotype that is based upon the Tryon (1880, p. 48), Wenz (1943, p. 1240) and Gilbert specimen originally figured by Conrad in 1832; the other (1963, p. 150) all considered Troschelia, and its junior eight specimens are paralectotypes. However, Tritonium subjective synonym Boreofusus Sars, 1878, to be (proba- - 130- with 1868. Tros- from the eastern USA in Conrad- bly) synonymous Buccinofusus Conrad, species are assuredly chelia, however, is not a synonym of Buccinofusus confusus n. gen. Conrad, 1868 (see Dali, 1909, p. 38; Bouchet & Waren, Five species originally placed in Buccinofusus 1985, p. 193), and hence is not available as a substitute Conrad, 1868 have subsequently been reassigned by for what various authors; these do name Conrad’s genus, contrary to was was pro- not belong in Conradconfusus Glibert I here Conrad- These taxa the posed by (1963, p. 150). propose n. gen. are following: confusus n. gen. as a replacement name for Buccinofusus bezanconi Conrad, 1868, non 1866. Buccinofusus Cossmann, 1889; reassigned to Currently, there are twenty-three species and subspe- Euthriofusus (Wrigleya) Glibert, 1963 by Le Renard & cies that may be assigned to Conradconfusus n. gen., as Pacaud (1995, p. 117), from the Eocene of France; follows: B. hentigymnus Cossmann, 1885, transferred to Pty- chatractus Stimpson, 1865 (Turbinellidae) by Coss- - Buccinofusus ageri Abbass, 1967 (Eocene, Egypt); from of mann (1889, 165), the Eocene France; Buccinofusus aquitanicus Peyrot, 1928 (Miocene, p. France); Fusus (B.) portolaensis Arnold, 1908, reassigned to Buccinofusus asiaticus Djalilov, 1977 (Cretaceous, Lirabuccinum Vermeij, 1991 (p. 269; Buccinidae), from Tadzhikistan); the Miocene of California; Fusus auerbachi von Koenen, 1868 (Eocene, Ger- many); Fusinus (B.) propeparilis Mansfield, 1929, transferred - auerbachi crebrilinea F. (Hemifusus) var. von Koenen, to Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 by Campbell et al. (1975, 1889 (Eocene, Germany); 112), from the Pliocene of Virginia; - p. F. (H.) auerbachi var. dispersa von Koenen, 1887 (Eo- cene, Europe and Asia); and Buccinofusus chesapeakensis Petuch, 1988 (Miocene, Maryland); B. surinamensis Okutani, 1982, synonymised with Me- Buccinofusus dautzenbergi Koperberg, 1931 (Pliocene, tulafusiformis Clench & Aguayo, 1941 (Buccinidae) by Timor); Bouchet & Waren (1986, 485), a Recent species from Buccinofusus d. niasensis Koperberg, 1931 (Pliocene, p. the southern Caribbean. Nisa Island); Buccinofusus d. timorensis Koperberg, 1931 (Pliocene, Twenty-four other species and subspecies have subse- Timor); quently been assigned to Buccinofusus Conrad, 1868 but - Fusus devexus Conrad, 1843 (Miocene, eastern USA); belong to other Turbinella ilocana W.D. Smith, 1913 (Neogene, Phil- genera. ippine Islands); Buccinofusus julianae Koperberg, 1931 (Pliocene, Acknowledgements Timor); Buccinofusus landanensis Vincent, 1913 (Paleocene, I wish to thank Geerat J. Vermeij (University of Califor- Congo); nia, Berkeley) for helpful discussions as well as the - Fusus nodifer S.V. Wood, 1879 (Pliocene, England); sug- gestion of the new name, and Gary Rosenberg (Academy Fusus parilis Conrad, 1832, type species (Miocene, Sciences of Natural of Philadelphia), who helped with a Maryland); few technical issues. - Ravn, 1933 Den- Buccinofusus? parvus (Paleocene, mark); Petuch, 1993 (Miocene, Buccinofusus patuxentensis References eastern USA); Fusus d’Orbigny, 1843 (Cretaceous, requienianus Abbass, H.L. 1967. A monograph on the Egyptian Paleocene and North Europe Africa); and Eocene gastropods. United Arab Republic, Egyptian Buccinofusus? subglaber Ravn, 1933 (Paleocene, Den- and General Organization for Mining and Geological Re- mark); search, Geological Survey of Egypt, Geological Museum, Palaeontological Series Monograph 4, 1-154, 50 pis. - Murex tuberosus J. Sowerby, 1819 (Eocene, England); A. 1863. On Adams, the Japanese species of Siphonalia, a pro- Fusus (Buccinofusus) tubuktensis Hina, 1955 (Paleo- Mollusca. posed new genus of gastropodous The Annals gene, Asia); and Magazine ofNatural History (3)11, 202-206. - Fusus verticillatus Stoliczka, 1867 (Cretaceous, India). Arnold, R. 1908. Descriptions of new Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils from the Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Pro- The author does know whether present not definitively or ceedings of the United States National Museum 34(1617), not all these assignments are correct; only the Miocene 345-390, pis 31-37. - 131 - Bouchet, P. & Waren, A. 1985. Revision of the northeast At- Gilbert, M. 1963. Les Muricacea and Buccinacea fossiles du lantic bathyal and abyssal Neogastropoda excluding Turri- Cenozolque etranger des collections de 1’Institut Royal des dae (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Bollettino Malacologico, Sup- Sciences naturelles de Belgique. Memoires de I'lnstitul plemento 1, 121-296. royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique (2)74, 1-179. Bouchet, P. & Waren, A. 1986. Mollusca Gastropoda: tax- Hanna, M.A. 1927. An Eocene invertebrate fauna from the La onomical notes on tropical deep water Buccinidae with de- Jolla Quadrangle, California. University ofCalifornia Pub- Musorstom Bulletin the Sci- scription of new taxa [Resultats des campagnes lications, of Department of Geological I et II - Philippines (1976-1980)], 2. Memoires du Museum ences 16(8), 247-398,pis 24-57. nationald’Histoire naturelle Paris, A. Zoologie 133, 455- Hina, A.P. 1955. Molluski paleogena Sevemogo Ustiurta. 499, pis 1-18. Vsesoiuznyi neftianoi nauchno-issledovateVskii geologo- Campbell, L., Campbell, S., Colquhoun, D., Emisee, J. & Ab- razvedochnyi Institut, Trudy, novaia seriia 89, 1-90, pis 1- bott, W. 1975. Plio-Pleistocene faunas of the central Caro- 34. lina coastal plain. South Carolina State Development King, W. 1846. An account of some shells and other inverte- Board, Division ofGeology, Geologic Notes 19(3), 51-124. brate forms found on the coast of Northumberland and of Clench, W.J. & Aguayo, G.G. 1941. Notes and descriptions of Durham. MagazineofNatural History 18, 233-247. new deep-waterMollusca obtained by the Harvard-Havana Koenen, A.