Taxon Concept provided by
  Home |   Search

Click on a letter below to get a list of species:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z all
Natica solida Sowerby 1846 from: Griffin, M..Nielsen, S.N.. (2008): A revision of the type specimens of Tertiary molluscs from Chile and Argentina described by d’Orbigny (1842), Sowerby (1846), and Hupé (1854) . Journal of Systematic Palaeontology
Anonymous: Unedited TaxonConcept data
Notice: This catalogue page may contain unedited data.
To find validated information on this taxon please visit the following project pages:

Species Natica solida Sowerby 1846

Discussion / Comments:
Griffin & Nielsen (2008):
TYPE MATERIAL. Sowerby (1846, p. 255) referred to a single specimen from Navidad (thus the holotype) and several “possibly distinct” specimens from Santa Cruz. Three specimens are still present in the collection (NHM-G26366, NHM-G26367, and NHM-G26342), all labeled Santa Cruz. The latter specimen belongs to a different genus. While NHM-G26366 (Plate 23, Figure 14; fig. 40 of Sowerby) and NHM-G26367 belong to Glossaulax, NHM-G26342 (Plate 23, Figure 12-13; fig. 41 of Sowerby) is a Magnatica Marwick, 1924 [type species Polinices planispirus Suter, 1917 = Natica (Magnatica) suteri Marwick, 1924, an unnecessary replacement name]. Because no Magnatica is known to occur at Santa Cruz while it is common at Navidad, NHM-G26342 is regarded as the figured holotype from Navidad. This specimen agrees well with figure and description of Sowerby (1846, p. 255), who stated that “The only specimen is very much worn, particularly about the spire”. The name Natica solida, however, is not available due to the existence of a primary homonym and thus the replacement name Natica subsolida d’Orbigny, 1852 has to be used (ICZN Article 72.7). REMARKS. Sowerby (1846) was not convinced that the material from Santa Cruz was conspecific with the one from Navidad (“closely resembling, but possibly distinct from this species”). Sowerby’s (1846) figure 40 is of a specimen from Santa Cruz and figure 41 from Navidad. They are clearly two different taxa. Fine spiral threads are shown on the NHM photo of the Santa Cruz specimen, though it also appears to be decorticated. Ihering (1907) was also aware of this and identified all the material from Santa Cruz that he had previously placed under Natica solida Sowerby as Polynices santacruzensis. Sowerby’s name had already been substituted by Hutton (1886) for Natica darwini. However, Ihering restricted the use of darwini to the material from Chile, and included the material from Santa Cruz in his new species P. santacruzensis. Neither Ihering nor Hutton appear to have been aware of d’Orbigny’s (d’Orbigny 1852, p. 96) earlier substitution of solida by subsolida. Therefore, Hutton’s introduction of darwini for all the material from Navidad and Santa Cruz (plus the specimens from Pareora believed by Hutton himself to be conspecific with the South American material) did nothing to clarify the real taxonomic status of this taxon. Ihering (1907) was right in distinguishing the material from Santa Cruz (including Sowerby’s figure 40) as clearly different. He failed, however, in noticing that Sowerby’s specimen of subsolida from Santa Cruz is different from his type material of Polynices santacruzensis Ihering, 1907 (p. 152-154, pl. 5, fig. 15). At the same time, he stated that the name darwini should be used for the Chilean material, an unwarranted assumption as the Chilean (and Argentine) material had been already renamed subsolida by d’Orbigny. The present situation is that there are two distinct taxa with two available names (darwini and subsolida). We hereby select the name subsolida for the species from Chile (Sowerby’s figure 41), while we believe that darwini should be used for the species from Santa Cruz (Sowerby’s figure 40). For the specimens described by Hutton from Pareora, Ihering (1907, p. 154, pl. 5, fig. 16) proposed the name P. huttoni. The callus on Ihering’s specimen shows the shallow pit usually present at the junction of the parietal and columellar calluses. The funicle is bordered anteriorly by a conspicuous groove. Philippi gave two figures of what he thought was Natica solida, one reproduced from Sowerby (Philippi 1887, pl. 10, fig. 16) and one named Natica solida ? (Philippi 1887, pl. 10, fig. 18) in the figure captions, which is the large specimen from Lebu mentioned in the text and which probably represents a distinct species. However, Philippi’s identification of his two specimens from Navidad (SGO.PI.44) as Natica solida is correct.
Synonym list:
Griffin & Nielsen (2008):
1846 Natica solida Sowerby. - Sowerby : p.255 pl. 3; fig. 41 only (junior primary homonym of N. solida Blainville, 1825)
1852 Natica nom. nov subsolida d'Orbigny. - d'Orbigny : p.39
1854 Natica orbignyi Hupè. - Hupé : p.224 (nomen nudum)
1887 Natica solida Sowerby. - Philippi : p.85 pl. 10; fig. 16 (of Sowerby)
2008 Magnatica subsolida d'Orbigny. - Griffin & Nielsen : pl. 23; fig. 12-13
Was used in synonym list of:

Sowerby,G.B.. (1846):
Descriptions of Tertiary fossil shells from South America..
In: Geological observations on South America. Eds: Darwin, C.. p. 249-264

d'Orbigny,A. (1852):
Prodrome de Paléontologie. Stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques & rayonnés faisant suitre au cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphique. Vol. 3 p. 189

Hupé,H.. (1854):
Malacología y conquiliología..
In: Historia física y política de Chile Vol. 8 Eds: Gay, C.. p. 449

Philippi,R.A.. (1887):
Die tertiären und quartären Versteinerungen Chiles.. p. 266

Griffin,M.. and Nielsen,S.N.. (2008):
A revision of the type specimens of Tertiary molluscs from Chile and Argentina described by d’Orbigny (1842), Sowerby (1846), and Hupé (1854) . Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.