Page 1 - HartmutNordsieck2013

Revisory remarks on the species of Siciliaria Vest from N. W. Sicily

Hartmut Nordsieck (VI.2013)

I. History

A. Schmidt (1868: 40­43) was the first who proposed a systematic arrangement of the seven Clausilia species from N.
W. Sicily (= Siciliaria (S.)) known so far. He classified the species with two groups („Formenkreise“) which mainly differ
by the formation of the clausilium plate. Other characters which he regarded as important were sculpture, development
of lamellae (inserta, inferior lamella) and palatal plicae. His system was the following: Formenkreis of septemplicata:
Clausilia grohmanniana Rossmässler, C. septemplicata Philippi, C. calcarae Philippi, C. confinata = scarificata L. Pfeiffer,
C. tiberii A. Schmidt; Formenkreis of crassicostata: C. crassicostata L. Pfeiffer, C. nobilis L. Pfeiffer.
O. Boettger (1877: 33­34) named the groups of Schmidt (F. of septemplicata = Siciliaria Vest sensu stricto, F. of
crassicostata = Trinacria O. Boettger). Later on, he (1879: 85­91) gave descriptions of several species taxa and listed
eight species (C. leucophryne L. Pfeiffer added to those of Schmidt). His distribution data were in part based on wrong
localities on the labels from Benoit and others.
Benoit (1882: 101­120 (sep.)) who had distributed most of the material in the collections of his contemporaries listed
13 species, several of them regarded as varieties or synonyms by Boettger. Like those of Boettger, his distribution data
were partially wrong.
Westerlund (1892: 47­48) published three of the numerous taxa names of (Allery di) Monterosato and gave a
determination key for the species.
A. J. Wagner (1913, 1925) figured the genital organs of three Siciliaria (S.) species (S. septemplicata: 1913: pl. 572,
fig. 14; S. grohmanniana: 1925: pl. 1, fig. 8, S. calcarae: pl. 3, fig. 25). He (1924: 123­125) gave a list of the species
which is nearly identical with that of Boettger.
Brandt, after his collection trip in Sicily in 1949, prepared a manuscript with the description of 24 new taxa based on
„species“ of Monterosato or collected by himself. This manuscript remained unpublished; later on, only five of the
species taxa were regarded by Brandt (1961: 6­9) as different enough to be described as new (among them two
species: S. ferrox, with figure of genitalia fig. 1, S. alcamoensis). Besides, he (: 8) united S. leucophryne and S. tiberii
(and S. eminens which later on was recognized as species) to one species under the name S. leucophryne, with which
he also affiliated the newly described S. riberothi as subspecies. Many localities given by him cannot be identified or are
obviously wrong.
Alzona (1971: 90­92) listed the same species as Boettger. Brandt's new taxa were not considered, although his paper
was cited.
Nordsieck (1979: 259­260) listed also the same species as Boettger and (: 269) united his species groups (Siciliaria s.
str., Trinacria (preoccupied) = Sicania Tomlin) because of the intermediate position of S. calcarae. Later on, he (1984:
202) described the new species S. spezialensis based on material collected by K. L. Pfeiffer.
Manganelli et al. (1995: 25, 47­48), in the checklist of Italian pulmonate gastropods, enumerated 10 species taxa,
proposed as such by Nordsieck (in litteris, S. ferrox and S. spezialensis added to those of Nordsieck 1979). At the same
time, Giusti et al. (1995: 327­330) evaded a distinction of species within the group which they gave the oldest name S.
septemplicata. Therefore, they determined S. calcarae from Quaternary deposits of Malta as S. cf. septemplicata.
Nordsieck (2002: 30, 34) recognized C. leucophryna and C. eminens as different species. He (29, 34) listed 12 species
of Charpentieria (Siciliaria) (= Siciliaria (S.)) and classified them with three species groups, based on some shell
characters regarded as informative: 1 nobilis­calcarae group, 1a nobilis subgroup (C. nobilis, C. spezialensis, C.
crassicostata, C. eminens), 1b calcarae subgroup (C. calcarae, C. tiberii, C. leucophryna), 2 grohmanniana group (C.
grohmanniana, C. septemplicata, C. scarificata). Because of their ambiguous character combinations, C. ferrox and C.
riberothi were not included in one of these groups. Several forms assumed to have originated by interspecies
hybridization (: 34) were added.
Beckmann (2004: 188, maps 1 and 2) published detailed informations on the distribution of the species and described
(: 188­190) two new subspecies, both assumed to be hybrid forms.
Reitano et al. (2007: 326­328) gave further informations on the distribution of S. ferrox.

II. System