[Brazil] “in ripis fluvii Amazonum”.

“Banks of Amazon”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 57, diam. 25 mill.”. Figured specimen H 58.0, D 25.5, W 6.4.

NHMUK 1975268, lectotype, 1975269, 2 paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but the species was described from the Cuming collection. The original label also mentions “between B. Largilliertii / + taunasii”; a label in a second (later?) hand has added “Prov. S. Paulo, Brazil / (Nehring)”.The current systematic position is according to Richardson (1995: 384).

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus taunaisii (Férussac, 1822).

“Parada, reipublicae mexicanae (Sallé)”.

“Parada, Mexico, M^r Sallé”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Diam. maj. 9, min. 8, alt. 5 1/2 mill.”. Figured specimen H 8.98, D 10.6, W 2.5.

NHMUK 20140830, three syntypes, Sallé leg. (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The current systematic position follows Thompson (2011: 130). The reference to this species in Richardson (1995: 361) cites the wrong author; the first two citations in his list should be omitted.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) aenea Pfeiffer, 1861.

“Cuzco, Bolivia; W. Lobb”.

“Cuzco”. M.C. label style III, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 35.5, D 16.5, W 6.6.

NHMUK 1975148, lectotype, 1975149, one paralectotype. W. Lobb leg. (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based. As Weyrauch (1964: 46) has argued, the type locality is probably in error. The current systematic position follows Richardson (1995: 371) at the species level. The familiar arrangement cannot be ascertained at present; tentatively this taxon is classified with the Orthalicidae until further research has proven its relationships.

?Orthalicidae, Scholvienia alutacea (Reeve, 1849).

[Colombia] “Bogota”.

“Bogota”, in Fulton’s handwriting.

“Long. 67 millim., maj. diam. 31 millim.”. Figured specimen H 65.7, D 32.5, W 6.5.

NHMUK 1895.12.19.44, one syntype (ex Fulton).

Fulton did not state on how many specimens his description was based; the single specimen found corresponds to his figure and is herein considered as syntype. The current systematic position is according to Richardson (1993: 117).

Orthalicidae, Porphyrobaphe (Porphyrobaphe) approximata Fulton, 1896.

“Brasilia”.

“Brazils”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 95 mill., diam. 34 mill.”. Figured specimen H 92.0, D 39.0, W –.

NHMUK 1975274, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but the species was described from the Cuming collection. The top whorls of the specimen are missing. The current systematic position is according to Simone (2006).

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus ascendens (Pfeiffer, 1853).

“Banks of the river Amazon”.

“Brazil”. M.C. label style I, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 66.6, D 35.0, W 7.9.

NHMUK 1975582, three possible syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Reeve described this taxon from “Mus. Benson”, but did not state on how many specimens his description was based. According to Tillier (1980: 73), the figured specimen is in the collection of the Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge. The material found is therefore considered as possible syntypes. The specimen figured by Pfeiffer 1853 (in Küster and Pfeiffer 1840–1865: pl. 21 fig. 1) was smaller than Reeve’s figure, but also originated from Benson’s collection.

Orthalicidae, Orthalicus bensoni (Reeve, 1849).

[Colombia] “Andes of Columbia”.

“Andes of Colombia”. M.C. label style I, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 56.9, D 32.8, W 5.8.

NHMUK 20140082, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The lectotype is not full-grown as shown by the lip. Pfeiffer (1853b: 388) mentioned specimens from both “Mus. Cuming, Benson. et Coll. Nr. 260 jun.”; as shell height he gave 65 mm, which was likely measured on a full-grown specimen. Richardson (1993: 98, 110) treated this taxon both as a separate species and as a junior subjective synonym of Bulinus princeps Broderip in Sowerby I 1833; tentatively this taxon is retained as a full species awaiting further studies.

Orthalicidae, Orthalicus bifulguratus (Reeve, 1849).

“Mexico (Mr. Boucard)”.

“Betaza Mexico / Mr. Boucard”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 43, diam. 25–26 mill.”. Figured specimen H 54.8, D 29.7, W 6.9.

NHMUK 20140081, three syntypes, Boucard leg. (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The specimens found are larger than the measurements given by Pfeiffer, but undoubtedly were collected by Mr. Boucard, bear Pfeiffer’s handwriting, and are considered syntypes herein. The type locality (Oaxaca, Sierra de Betaza) was specified by Martens 1893 [1890–1901]: 101 on the basis of Boucard’s material. The current systematic position follows Thompson (2011: 101).

Orthalicidae, Orthalicus boucardi (Pfeiffer, 1860).

“republica Peruviana”.

“Pérou”, in d’Orbigny’s handwriting.

“Longit. 52 millim., latit. 25 millim.”. Figured specimen H 51.9, D 25.1, W 5.6.

NHMUK 1854.12.4.117, lectotype (d’Orbigny coll.).

d’Orbigny did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The specimen found corresponds to the figures of d’Orbigny and is here designated lectotype (design. n.) to define the taxon, which has been compared to Bulimus taeniolus Nyst, 1845 (Pilsbry 1895 [1895–1896]: 57). d’Orbigny (1838 [1834–1847]: 294) specified the type locality as follows: “Nous n’avons pas receuilli nous-même ce Bulime; nous le devons à la bonté toute particulière de M. Mathius, botaniste anglais, que nous avons rencontré à Lima, et qui l’avait apporté du verant oriental des Andes péruviennes, à peu près par la latitude de Lima”; this would indicate the eastern part of Dept. Junín (e.g., Chanchamayo region) as the likely source area. The classification at species level follows Richardson (1995: 373), but further studies are needed to ascertain its status; for the generic level see also the remarks under the systematic arrangement above.

?Orthalicidae, Scholvienia brephoides (d’Orbigny, 1835).

[Ecuador, Prov. Loja] “San Lucas”.

“Ecuador”.

“Long. 93, lat. 36 mill.”. Figured specimen H 92.0, D 36.0, W 6.0.

NHMUK 1872.5.22.6, two syntypes (da Costa coll.).

Higgins did not state on how many specimens his description was based. Of the two syntypes mentioned by Breure (1978), only one could be found.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus buckleyi (Higgins, 1872).

“Brazil (Mr. Cloué)”.

“Brazils Mons Cloué”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 22, diam. 10 mill.”. Figured specimen H 22.2, D 11.1, W 7.2.

NHMUK 1975491, lectotype; 1975492, one paralectotype, Cloué leg. (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006).

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus clouei (Pfeiffer, 1857).

“—?”.

“Brazil”. M.C. label style I, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 52.9, D 22.8, W 6.5.

NHMUK 20030189, three syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but wrote “[t]his shell approaches nearest to the B. Taunaisii, but is certainly distinct”. Pfeiffer (1853: 406) considered this taxon a junior subjective synonym of Bulimus largillierti Philippi, 1842, which has been followed by later authors. The printed label also mentions this name, and this is consistent with the index (Reeve 1850 [1848–1850]: v); the locality “Brazil” has been added in a later hand.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus largillierti (Philippi, 1842).

“Trinidad”.

“Trinidad”, presumably in Guppy’s handwriting.

“Height 0.38 inch, greatest breadth 0.47 inch [H 9.65, D 11.9 mm]”. Figured specimen H 9.27 (damaged), D 10.8, W 3.5.

NHMUK 1866.1.3.7, one syntype (ex Guppy).

Guppy did not state on how many specimens his description was based; the single specimen found is damaged. Guppy emendated the name “qu’il me paraît préférable de féminiser, à l’exemple de Pfeiffer et de la plupart des auteurs” (Guppy 1878: 323). He also wrote “...je n’avais pu trouver que deux individus complétement adultes et deux exemplaires jeunes de cette espèce (...) Au commencement de l’année 1877, j’ai été assez heureux pour découvrir six à sept autres individus adultes (...) Coll. L. Guppy et H. Crosse”. From this text it is clear that Guppy had multiple specimens at hand when originally describing this taxon, and also that the figure presented in this paper (Guppy 1878: pl. 10 fig. 5) is likely not from the type series.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) corrugata Guppy, 1866.

“Mexico”.

“Mexico”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Diam. maj. 20 1/2, alt. 12 mill.”. Figured specimen H 14.1, D 19.0, W 3.4.

NHMUK 1975486, lectotype and one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. Two specimens have been found in the collection, of which one is designated lectotype (design. n.) to fixate this poorly understood species. This taxon was compared to Simpulopsis aenea by Pilsbry (1899), but has not been recognised by later authors. Richardson’s references (1995: 363) to a citation for Venezuela [Richards and Wagenaar Hummelinck 1940: 7] and Brazil [Jaeckel 1952: 7] were in error; these authors mentioned “Tomigerus cumingi Pfeiffer” [Odontostomidae]. The current systematic position is according to Thompson (2011: 130), who expressed doubt about the locality from which it was reported.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) cumingi Pfeiffer, 1861.

“Peruvian side of the Amazon”.

“Banks of Amazon River / (Reeve)”, in Dance’s handwriting; see below.

“Long. 2 3/4 in. Lat. 1 1/4 in. [H 69.9, D 31.8 mm]”. Figured specimen H 64.7, D 33.6, W 6+.

NHMUK 19601622, lectotype (ex DeBurgh).

Reeve wrote “[a] fine shell”, but otherwise it is not clear from the context that he had only one specimen at hand. The material is accompanied by a label written in 1961 by S.P. Dance “This specimen does not suit Reeve’s measurements but it is labelled by Mrs. de Burgh”; his selection as lectotype was interpreted as such by Breure and Schouten (1985). Their text may be ambiguous, but as all the qualifying data are given following Recommendation 74C jo. 73C, we feel that this designation qualifies Art. 74.5 ICZN. The specimen is slightly damaged at the top, hence the measurements depart from those given by Reeve.

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) deburghiae (Reeve, 1859).

[Brazil] “Petropolis prope Rio Janeiro (Miers)”.

“Petropolis Rio / F. Miers E[sq.]”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Diam. maj. 12 1/2, alt. 11 mill.”. Figured specimen H 14.3, D 12.5, W 4.7.

NHMUK 1975488, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described this taxon from “Mus. Cuming”. This is contrasting the statement in da Silva and Thomé (2007), who said “Pfeiffer mentioned a single specimen”; they considered the specimen in NHMUK as the holotype (da Silva and Thomé 2007: 14), but this does not follow Art. 73.1 and Recommendation 73F ICZN Code. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006).

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) decussata Pfeiffer, 1857.

[Guiana] “Demerara”.

“Demerara”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 20 1/2, diam. 10 mill.”. Figured specimen H 20.1, D 10.9, W 6.5.

NHMUK 1975501, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; only a single specimen was found. Muratov and Gargominy (2011) re-described this taxon and studied the anatomy of a single dried individual. They concluded that this taxon “lacks the very characteristic, for Leiostracus, division of the spermathecal duct into an enlarged distal part and a slender proximal part that connect to the distal part sub-apically, which is essentially the only character that separates Leiostracus from Bostryx”. As Breure (1978: 239–240) has shown, these two genera also differ in their radula structure, which was not studied by Muratov and Gargominy. Moreover, molecular data lends support for clear differentiation of both genera, even in different families (Breure and Romero 2012); more research may be needed to ascertain the position of Pfeiffer’s taxon. The generic classification of Breure (1979) is retained herein.

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus demerarensis (Pfeiffer, 1861).

“Brazil”.

“Brazil (Gould)”.

“Long. 1 1/2, lat. 1/3 poll. [H 38.0, D 8.4 mm]”. Figured specimen H 37.2, D 8.4, W 18.1.

NHMUK 1987060, three paralectotypes (ex Gould).

Gould did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The lectotype is USNM 5503 (Rehder 1945), who considered this taxon to be a junior synonym of Pupa elatior Spix, 1827; however, Simone (2006) considered the two taxa as distinct and the current systematic position follows his work.

Megaspiridae, Megaspira elata (Gould, 1847).

“Bahia, Brazil (teste H. Fulton)”.

“Bahia”, in Fulton’s handwriting.

“Longit. 20, diam. 12 mill.”. Figured specimen H 20.5, D 13.3, W 5.3.

NHMUK 1905.12.30.12, one paralectotype.

Ancey did not state on how many specimens his description was based; the NHMUK specimens were considered syntypes by Breure (1978, 1979), and Simone (2006). Breure (2011) selected the specimen in RBINS (also mentioned as syntype by Wood and Gallichan 2008) as lectotype. Ancey (1904) considered his taxon as belonging to “the Eudioptus section” of Bulimulus; Breure (2011) re-classified it with Simpulopsis (Eudioptus) Albers, 1860. Further anatomical and molecular studies should provide more evidence for this classification.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Eudioptus) ephippium Ancey, (1904).

“Vitoe, near Sarma [sic, Tarma], Alto-Peru; W. Lobb”.

“Peru”. M.C. label style IV, V.

“Long. 3 poll., diam. 15 lin. [H 76.0, D 31.7 mm]”; see remarks. Figured specimen H 71.5, D 37.0, W 5.7.

NHMUK 1975275, lectotype; 1975276, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer, in his original description, referred to Sowerby I 1838 in Sowerby I and II 1832–1841: fig. 59, for which no further data were presented; Pfeiffer (1848b) corrected the dimensions to “Long. 72, diam. 35 mill.”. In both instances the locality was presented as “Chile”, and the material as collected by Philippi (jun.); in Pfeiffer 1844 (Küster and Pfeiffer 1840–1865) “Aufenthalt: Chile und Peru” is given. The shell figured in the latter publication may be referred to what Reeve (1849) has named as Bulimus foveolatus; Pfeiffer (1853: xiv) remarked that his taxon was not identical to Sowerby’s Bulinus mahogani, however, he did not discuss the large geographical distance between the localities where Philippi and Lobb collected their material. Pfeiffer’s original material is most probably lost (Dance 1966), and whether his taxon is a synonym of Reeve’s may possibly never be fully ascertained. The current systematic position follows Richardson (1995: 375), who incorrectly assigned this taxon to Pfeiffer.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus foveolatus (Reeve, 1849).

“in provincia Cuenca reipublicae Aequatoris (Fraser)”.

“Found on the road from Gualaquiza / to Mendez— and near to the latter / place”, “Province of Cuenca / Republic of Ecuador / M^r Fraser”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 89, diam. 37 mill.”. Figured specimen H 88.9, D 45.0, W 6.4.

NHMUK 20140083, lectotype, Fraser leg. (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described this taxon from “Mus. Cuming”. The current systematic position follows Breure and Schouten (1985).

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) fraseri (Pfeiffer, 1858).

“Republic of Ecuador”.

“Republic Ecuador / M^r Fraser”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 78, diam. 34 mill.”. Figured specimen H 75.2, D 39.3, W 5.7+.

NHMUK 1975243, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; the single specimen found has the top damaged. The lectotype designation by Breure and Schouten (1985) may be viewed ambiguously, but as all the qualifying data are given following Recommendation 74C jo. 73C, we feel that this designation qualifies Art. 74.5 ICZN. The current systematic position follows Breure and Schouten (1985).

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) deburghiae (Reeve, 1859).

“Brasil, Rio Grande do Sul, São Francisco de Paula”.

No locality.

Not given (range H 1.60–10.96, D 1.55–8.63 mm). Figured specimen H 6.46, D 6.93, W 3.5.

NHMUK 20050238, one paratype in ethanol, J.W. Thomé leg.

This taxon was based on 17 specimens; the specimen present in NHMUK was mentioned in the original paper. Its systematic position may, however, need to be critically re-examined as many taxa have already been described from this region.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) gomesae da Silva & Thomé, 2006.

“Rio Caqueta, S.E. Colombia”.

“Rio Caqueta, / S.E. Colombia”, in Smith’s handwriting.

“[L]ength is 67 mm. and diameter 23”. Figured specimen H 67.3, D 24.8, W 8.8.

NHMUK 1902.5.27.4, holotype.

This taxon was described from a single specimen. The morphological variation within Corona pfeifferi needs further study.

Orthalicidae, Corona pfeifferi gracilis E.A. Smith, 1902.

“respublica [sic] Aequatoris, ubi ad ‘El Catamaija’ prope Loxa Hartweg”.

“El Catamaja near Loxa”. M.C. label style IV.

“Long 28, diam. 13´´´ [H 61.0, D 28.3 mm]”. Figured specimen H 57.0, D 30.0, W 4.8.

NHMUK 1975126, one syntype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but said the material was in “Sammlung des Hrn. Hugh Cuming”. Given the context of the publication, it is here assumed that the dimensions were given in German lines (1 line = 2.18 mm); Pfeiffer (1848b) quoted “Long. 57, diam. 26 mill.”, which shell height concurs with our measurement given above. The current systematic position follows Richardson (1995: 376).

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus hartwegi (Pfeiffer in Philippi, 1846).

“Mendez, Andes of New Granada”.

“Mendes Andes of Granada”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style I.

“Long. 12 1/2, diam. 7 1/2 mill.”. Figured specimen H 20.6, D 11.1, W 6.7.

NHMUK 1975412, lectotype; 1975413, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; he described this taxon from Cuming’s collection. The paralectotype specimen is juvenile. Breure (1978) mentioned that the original measurements given by Pfeiffer were in error. Linares and Vera (2012) said “Bulimulus hyaloides (Pfeiffer, 1855) es un sinónimo”, overlooking the fact that this is the same taxon; they probably mixed the classification of Richardson (1995: 76) [who placed this taxon with Bulimulus Leach, 1814], and the classification of Breure (1979) [who placed it under Rhinus Albers, 1860]. The current systematic position follows the synonymisation by Breure (1978).

Simpulopsidae, Rhinus constrictus (Pfeiffer, 1841).

“Tutulima (republica Boliviana)”.

“Tutulima, Bolivia”, in d’Orbigny’s handwriting.

“Longit 72 millim., latit. 30 millim.”. Figured specimen H 75.4, D 32.3, W 8.3.

NHMUK 1854.12.4.116, lectotype and three paralectotypes (d’Orbigny coll.).

d’Orbigny did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The lot found consists of four specimens, of which the one corresponding to d’Orbigny’s figure is now designated lectotype (design. n.) to fixate the taxon, which needs further study to clarify its status; the three paralectotypes are one subadult and two juveniles. Three other specimens are in the MNHN collection (Breure 1975), and are thus paralectotypes. d’Orbigny (1838 [1834–1847]: 295) specified the localities as follows: “deux localités differentes, au nord-est de la Cordillère orientale de Bolivia; la première fois dans le fond d’un ravin humide et boisé, près de Carcuata, province de Yungas, où nous n’en avons eu qu’un seul exemplaire; puis au nord de Cochabamba, dans le fond du ravin de ‘Tutulima’, d’où il nous a été apportes par les Indiens” (see also Breure 1973). The current systematic position follows Richardson (1995: 376).

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus inca (d’Orbigny, 1835).

“Ecuador”.

“Ecuador”, in da Costa’s handwriting.

“Long. 44, diam. 23 mm.”. Figured specimen H 44.0, D 24.0, W 4.8.

NHMUK 1907.11.21.115, lectotype; 1907.11.21.116, one paralectotype (da Costa coll.).

da Costa did not state on how many specimens his description was based. This species has been classified by Thaumastus s.str. by Breure (1979). Upon re-studying the specimens found, however, the protoconch appears to be pit-reticulated and the taxon may be better placed in Kara Strebel, 1910. This taxon is closely allied to Kara thompsonii (Pfeiffer, 1845) and K. yanamensis (Morelet, 1863), and upon further studies may prove to be a synonym of either of these species.

Orthalicidae, Kara indentata (da Costa, 1901) (comb. n.).

“Chanchamayo, Peru”.

“Chanchamayo Peru”.

“Alt. 70, diam. maj. 29.5 mm.”. Figured specimen H 70.4, D 31.2, W 5.6.

NHMUK 1947.3.11.1, holotype (ex Preston).

Preston wrote “[a]n extraordinary shell”; the singular implies that he had only one specimen at hand, the specimen thus is the holotype. A label states “Purchased from / Preston many years ago / by Mayor Connolly with / others / A. M. N. H. viii p. 509”. The current systematic position follows Richardson (1995: 377) at the species level, the generic classification should be re-evaluated by further studies of the anatomy and by molecular research; this could also affect the arrangement at family level.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus insolitus (Preston, 1909).

“Quito, Ecuador”.

“Quito”. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 82, diam. 39 mill.”. Figured specimen H 81.5, D 42.0, W 7.4.

NHMUK 1975244, lectotype; 1975245, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; he did, however, recognize a variety β for which he gave “Long. 65, diam. 31 mill.” as measurements. This was likely a shell from his own collection, as the paralectotype in the Cuming collection has a shell height of 71.6 mm. The protoconch of these type specimens is sculptured with axial wrinkles, becoming coarse granules on the lower part of the protoconch. The generic classification of Breure (1979) is herein tentatively retained, but further studies should clarify the systematic position of this taxon.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus integer (Pfeiffer, 1855).

“Le Ceja, Rio Negro Novae Granadae (Bland)”.

“La Ceja. Rio Negro / New Grenada”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style I.

“Long. 64, diam. 32 mill.”. Figured specimen H 72.6, D 41.1, W 5.8.

NHMUK 20100506, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described the species from “Mus. Cuming”. Although the specimen is larger than the measurements given by Pfeiffer, there is little doubt it is from the original series as the label confirms the original locality; it also bears the text “please to name this / ‘Blandi’ after the collector”. The specimen is now designated lectotype (design. n.) to fixate this taxon, which needs further study to clarify its status. The mentioning in Linares and Vera (2012: 157) of “ZMUZ 511864” as lectotype for this taxon is erroneous, as this refers to the type specimen of the junior subjective synonym Bulimus wallisianus Mousson, 1873 (see Breure 1976: 3). The current systematic position follows Richardson (1993: 119).

Orthalicidae, Porphyrobaphe (Porphyrobaphe) iris (Pfeiffer, 1853).

“Brazil? New Granada?”.

“Quito Ecuador”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

Not given. Figured specimen H 77.0, D 44.0, W 6+.

NHMUK 1975248, three syntypes, A.L. Gubba leg. (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but said it was the “Mus. Cuming (...) thanks to the liberality of A.L. Gubba, Esq., of [Le] Havre”. In Reeve (1850) the locality was mentioned as “—?”. The top of the specimen figured is damaged. The current systematic position is according to Richardson (1993: 119).

Orthalicidae, Porphyrobaphe irrorata (Reeve, 1849).

“Brasilia”.

“Brazils”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style I.

“Long. 19, diam. 11 mill.”. Figured specimen H 20.4, D 10.9, W 6+.

NHMUK 20110083, three syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; he described the taxon “Ex Coll. Cl. Gruner” (Pfeiffer 1852) and specified this later to “Mus. Cuming ex Gruner” (Pfeiffer 1853b). The three specimens found are thus considered to be syntypes; one of these, possibly figured in Pfeiffer 1854 [Küster and Pfeiffer 1840–1865], is broken. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006).

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus obliquus (Reeve, 1849).

“Ecuador?”.

“?Ecuador”. M.C. label style III, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 61.2, D 33.2, W 5.7.

NHMUK 1975241, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

The material is accompanied by a label “the type specimen”. However, Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but only mentioned “this new and very beautiful species”. The specimen found should thus be regarded as lectotype, contradicting the statement by Breure and Borrero (2008), who considered it as holotype.

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) kelletti (Reeve, 1850).

“in Andibus Novae Granadae”.

“Andes N. Granada”. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 71, diam. 34 mill.”. Figured specimen H 71.3, D 37.3, W 5.8.

NHMUK 1975125, one syntype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but said the material was in “Mus. Cuming”. The protoconch is sculptured with spaced, indistinct wrinkles, becoming closer towards the transition to the teleoconch. The lip is white, which is quite unusual for Thaumastuss.str. Further research should thus shed more light on the systematic position of this taxon, which is here figured for the first time. Linares and Vera (2012) assumed that this taxon was collected in “Colombia, en una localidad no definida”. Although this cannot be excluded, this remains disputable as ‘New Granada’ had a broader political-administrative meaning at the time the specimen was collected. Therefore, at the moment the allocation of this taxon to the Colombian malacofauna remains doubtful at best.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus loxostomus (Pfeiffer, 1853).

“Quito, Ecuador; in woods (De Lattre)”.

“Quito, Ecuador”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 47, diam. 21 mill.”. Figured specimen H 46.6, D 23.0, W 5.5.

NHMUK 20100508, two syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described this taxon from Cuming’s collection. Reeve’s figure (Reeve 1849 [1849–1850]: pl. 9 fig. 33) was from “the collection of J. Dennison, Esq., of which there is also a specimen in the possession of Mr. Cuming [i.e., Pfeiffer’s type]”. This taxon has been incorrectly classified with Hemibulimus Martens, 1885 by Pilsbry (1899: 185)—who copied Reeve’s figure—and Richardson (1993: 71); Pilsbry (1909 [1908–1910]: 117) corrected his mistake. The type material is here re-figured, after E.A. Smith (1907) had figured it for the first time. Although the specimen seems to be slightly subadult, this taxon might be closely allied to Bulimus corydon Crosse, 1869, B. phoebus Pfeiffer, 1863, and B. victor Pfeiffer, 1854. Achatina magnifica is now tentatively placed in Clathrorthalicus Strebel, 1909; however, further anatomical and molecular studies should reveal the correct systematic position.

Orthalicidae, Clathrorthalicus magnificus (Pfeiffer, 1848) (comb. n.).

“Pérou”.

“Le Perou (Brésil)”; see remarks.

“Près de 3 pouces de longueur”; see remarks. Figured specimen H 78.0, D 36.0, W 6.9.

NHMUK 1907.11.22.24, lectotype (da Costa coll., ex Grateloup).

Grateloup did not state on how many specimens his description was based; in Grateloup (1839b: 420) he gave as measurements “Hauteur: 80 mill. – Diamètre: 35 Mill.” and said it was from “Mon cabinet”. As Breure (1978) noted, this specimen “From Grateloup Collⁿ.” came to the NHMUK collection via da Costa, who purchased the specimen from the dealers Sowerby and Fulton. Reeve (1848 [1848–1850]) evidently based his description on a different specimen, as he wrote “The shell named B. magnificus by M. Grateloup is, according to the specimen so marked in Mr. Cuming’s collection, a variety of B. Taunaysii [supposed by Reeve to be Férussac’s species] of a lighter brown colour”. Despite the confusing localities (“Brésil” seems to be added in a later hand), the status of this specimen is not disputed herein; the Peruvian locality, however, still needs confirmation. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006), who reported this species from the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus magnificus (Grateloup, 1839).

[Colombia] “Marmato, New Granada”.

“Marmata / New Grenada”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 17, diam. 10 mill.”. Figured specimen H 15.0, D 11.0, W 5.0.

NHMUK 1975330, three syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; he, however, described this taxon from the collection of Cuming. Three specimens were found, two damaged adults and one juvenile. The protoconch is sculptured with axial wrinkles and spiral lines; this taxon—classified by Breure (1979: 63) with Bulimulus Leach, 1814—is therefore now placed in Simpulopsis Beck, 1837 and is considered as junior subjective synonym of S. (Eudioptus) citrinovitrea (Moricand, 1836) (comb. n., syn. n.). The taxon is here figured for the first time.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Eudioptus) citrinovitrea (Moricand, 1836).

“republica Aequatoris (Mr. Fraser)”.

“Republic of Ecuador”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 77, diam. 35 mill.”. Figured specimen H 76.6, D 38.4, W 6+.

NHMUK 20100504, three syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described “from the collection of H. Cuming”. Although on the label has been written in a later hand “none quite like fig.”, the type status is not disputed as the shell height matches the original data. The top of the largest specimen, herein figured, is damaged. Also the top of one of the other specimens is damaged. The protoconch of the third, undamaged, specimen is smooth. This taxon is tentatively classified with Orthalicus Beck, 1837; however, further anatomical and molecular research should provide evidence to assess if this classification is correct or needs to be adjusted.

Orthalicidae, Orthalicus mars Pfeiffer, 1861.

“Meobamba, Eastern Peru (Mr. Yates)”.

“Meobamba / East Peru”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 88, diam. 46 mill.”. Figured specimen H 84.9, D 52.8, W 6.4.

NHMUK 20100505, two syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. There is no doubt, however, about the type status of the specimens found as he described this taxon from the Cuming collection and the taxon label is—although in pencil—in his handwriting. This is the first time this material is figured; Strebel (1909: pl. 29 fig. 429) figured a specimen from Huagabamba, Peru that E.A. Smith considered conspecific.

Orthalicidae, Sultana (S.) meobambensis (Pfeiffer, 1855).

[Brazil] “Espirito Santo Brasiliae (Miers)”.

“Espirits Santo / F. Miers Esq.”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Diam. maj. 24, alt. 17 1/2 mill.”. Figured specimen H 20.6, D 20.9, W 4.5.

NHMUK 1975489, lectotype; 1975490 one paralectotype (Cuming coll., ex Miers).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but refers to “Mus. Cuming”, and Miers as source. The lectotype is slightly damaged at the body of the last whorl and the lip. The references of Richardson (1993: 364) for this taxon to Pfeiffer 1853b: 333 and Pfeiffer 1859: 396 are erroneous, as these refer to Bulinus miersii Sowerby, 1838. The current systematic position is according to Simone (2006).

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) miersi Pfeiffer, 1857.

“—?”.

No locality label, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 38.6, D 19.5, W 7.1.

NHMUK 1975482, 20230332, three + three syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but figured two different specimens from “Mus. Cuming”. Three specimens were found in lot NHMUK 1975482, one of which corresponds to Reeve's figure 22a; Pfeiffer has identified this lot as “A. fasciata / Müller juv.”. Lot 20120332 also contains three specimens, one of which was figured as fig. 22b. The current systematic position follows Breure et al. (2014).

Orthalicidae, Liguus murreus (Reeve, 1849).

“Jimenez, Rio Dagua, West Colombia”.

“Jimenez Rio Dagua / 1600 ft. Colombia”, in Preston’s handwriting.

Not given. Figured specimen H 65.2, D 31.3, W 7.2.

NHMUK 1909.8.18.85, holotype, M.G. Palmer leg., ex Preston.

Preston mentioned “taken with the animal alive”, from which may be inferred that he had only one specimen at hand. The specimen located is thus the holotype; the top is slightly damaged. The taxon is here figured for the first time. The current systematic position at species level follows Richardson (1993: 125).

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Methorthalicus) powisiana (Petit de la Saussaye, 1843).

[Brazil] “Bahia”.

“Brazil”. M.C. label style I, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 22.7, D 12.05, W 6+.

NHMUK 1975493, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but mentioned “[a] pink shell”; this is herein not considered as sufficient evidence that he had only one shell for his description. The material was in “Mus. Cuming”. The top and the apertural lip of the specimen found are damaged. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006).

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus obliquus (Reeve, 1849).

“Brazil”.

“Brazil”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

Not given. Figured specimen H 27.8, D 14.3, W 7.4.

NHMUK 1975442, three probable syntypes (Cuming coll.).

Sowerby did not state on how many specimens his description was based; he wrote “Nob.”, thus “ours”, meaning the author claimed his right as describer of the new taxon, not necessarily proof of presence in his own collection. As Breure and Ablett (2011: 10) suggested that these might have been swapped with Cuming, the three specimens found are treated as probable syntypes. They are accompanied by two labels in Pfeiffer’s handwriting; one “Bul. opalinus / Sow”, the other in different ink “perlucidus Spix”. In Pfeiffer 1848: 108 the dimensions “Long. 27, diam. 14 mill.” were given; this corresponds to the largest specimen in the lot. The citation in Richardson (1995: 207) to “Pfeiffer, Mono. Helic. Viv. 1: 231” refers to Helix opalina Sowerby I, 1841, and is thus in error. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006).

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus perlucidus (Spix, 1827).

“Philippine Islands; Cuming”.

“Pernambuco, Brazil”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style I, V.

Not given. Figured specimen H 20.1, D 12.3, W 6.4.

NHMUK 1975416, lectotype; 1975417, two paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).

Reeve did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but mentioned “A shell of rather solid growth...”; this is herein not considered as sufficient evidence that he had only one shell for his description. The material was in “Mus. Cuming”. Richardson (1995: 226) incorrectly classified this taxon with Naesiotus Albers, 1850. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006); the shell height given by him is erroneous.

Simpulopsidae, Rhinus ovulum (Reeve, 1849).

“provincia Chiquitensi (republica Boliviana)”.

“Sn Xavier, Chquitos (Bolivia)”, in d’Orbigny’s handwriting.

“Longit. 55 millim.; latit. 24 millim.”. Figured specimen H 59.8, D 26.8, W 6+.

NHMUK 1854.12.4.86, six syntypes (d’Orbigny coll.).

d’Orbigny (1835) did not state on how many specimens his description was based; he said his taxon was identical to Helix regina var. β Férussac, 1821. In d’Orbigny (1838 [1834–1847]: 260) the locality was specified as “environs des Missions de San-Xavier et de Concepcion”; see Breure 1973. Of the material found, none of the shells corresponds exactly with d’Orbigny’s figure. The current systematic position is according to Richardson (1993: 108).

Orthalicidae, Orthalicus phlogerus (d’Orbigny, 1835).

“Ecuador”.

“Ecuador”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 31, diam. 15 mill.”. Figured specimen H 30.5, D 17.5, W 5.5.

NHMUK 1975143, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described his material “from the collection of H. Cuming”. This taxon has long been associated with Plekocheilus (Eurytus) Albers, 1850, but re-examination of the type—of which the protoconch proves to be smooth—plus recent collections in north-western Ecuador (Breure unpublished data) reveal that this taxon belongs to Clathrorthalicus Strebel, 1909. It may be closely allied to Bulimus corydon Crosse, 1869, B. magnificus Pfeiffer, 1848 and B. victor Pfeiffer, 1854; however, further anatomical and molecular studies should clarify the current systematic position.

Orthalicidae, Clathrorthalicus phoebus (Pfeiffer, 1863) (comb. n.).

“Venezuela”.

“Venezuela”. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 93, diam. 36 mill.”. Figured specimen H 93.0, D 40.5, W 5.9.

NHMUK 1975130, lectotype; 1975131, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described his material “from the collection of H. Cuming”. Although there is no label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting, the type status of these specimens is not disputed as the shell height matches the original data. This taxon has been considered a junior subjective synonym of Helix (Cochlogena) pardalis Férussac, 1821 (Richardson 1995: 202), but re-examination of the type leads us to tentatively retain the classification of Breure (1978). It may be noted that the locality of this taxon is well outside the range of Thaumastus; however, it could possibly occur in southwestern Venezuela. Once located, further anatomical and molecular studies should shed more light on its systematic position.

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus plumbeus (Pfeiffer, 1855).

“Bolivia (T. Bridges)”.

“Bolivia”, “andes of Caxamarca / Peru”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV, V.

“Long. 51, diam. 20 mill.”. Figured specimen H 51.5, D 22.0, W 6.6.

NHMUK 1975277, lectotype; 1975278, two paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; it was, however, one of the taxa from the Cuming collection. Breure (1978) has discussed the localities and suggested that both labels are probably erroneous. This taxon has hitherto been classified with Thaumastus (Scholvienia) Strebel, 1910. Given the results of Breure and Romero (2012), who found that subgenera of Thaumastus belong to different families, the familiar association of this taxon is tentatively made to the Orthalicidae, and Scholvienia is provisionally given generic status. Further anatomical and molecular studies should shed more light on its systematic position.

?Orthalicidae, Scholvienia porphyria (Pfeiffer, 1847) (comb. n.).

“Brasilia”.

“Brazils”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV.

“Long. 62, diam. 26 mill.”. Figured specimen H 62.0, D 29.0, W 5.3+.

NHMUK 1975301, lectotype; 1975302, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but described his material from “Mus. Cuming”. The top of the lectotype is slightly damaged. The protoconch is sculptured with slightly waving axial riblets. Both specimens appear to be subadult; further studies are needed to ascertain the taxonomic position of this taxon. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006).

Megaspiridae, Thaumastus requieni (Pfeiffer, 1853).

“in insulis Salomonis”.

“Solomons Isl”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 11, diam. 9 mill.”. Figured specimen H 11.1, D 10.7, W 4.5.

NHMUK 1975485, lectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but noted “Mus. Cuming”. He also remarked “Diese Art ist mit der brasilianischen Gruppe Simpulopsis Beck sehr nahe verwandt”, which might have led Pilsbry (1899: 226) to suggest that the locality given by Pfeiffer was erroneous. Breure (1978) suggested that this taxon might be a junior subjective synonym of Helix (Succinea) rufovirens Moricand, 1846. Richardson (1995: 367) considered this taxon as a separate species; Simone (2006) did not mention it at all. Tentatively the classification of this taxon by Breure (1978) is herein retained, until a further revision of this group clarifies its taxonomic status.

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (S.) rufovirens (Moricand, 1846).

“Catamarca, Andes Peruviae”.

“Andes of Peru”; printed label.

“Long. 70, maj. diam. 35 mill.”. Figured specimen H 69.9, D 35.2, W 6.0.

NHMUK 1907.11.21.118, lectotype (da Costa coll.).

Sowerby also described a (larger) “var. γ”, and remarked “[t]he two shells form part of the collection of Mr. S.J. Da Costa, and there is a specimen of each variety [typical one and var. γ] in the National Collection at South Kensington [= NHMUK]”. The original series thus seems to have comprised two specimens, and the reference in Breure (1979) to “HT BMNH 1907.11.21.118” has to be interpreted as lectotype designation under Art. 74.6 ICZN, also following Recommendation 73F. We have, however, not been able to locate a varietal form of this taxon in the da Costa collection within the NHMUK. In the General collection we found two specimens. One is labeled “Thaumastus salteri / Andes of Peru / Purch Sowerby”, and is registered as NHMUK 1883.10.24.8 (it is listed in the register as Orthalicus and no specific name). The second specimen is labelled “salteri var. / Peru / Mus. Cuming”; this is the only specimen with a varietal label, but nonetheless dubious if it belonged to the original series and Sowerby’s varietal shell may have been lost from the collection. This taxon has hitherto been classified with Thaumastus (Quechua) Strebel, 1910. Given the results of Breure and Romero (2012), who found that subgenera of Thaumastus belong to different families, the familial association of this taxon is tentatively made to the Orthalicidae, and Quechua is provisionally given generic status, pending further anatomical and molecular studies.

?Orthalicidae, Quechua salteri (Sowerby III, 1890) (comb. n.).

“in Brasilia septentrionali (Miers)”.

“North of Brazils / F. Miers Esq”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style I.

“Long. 21–25, diam. 10–11 1/2 mill.”. Figured specimen H 24.7, D 13.1, W 7.7.

NHMUK 1975398, lectotype; 1975399, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based, but from his dimensions it is clear that he had more than one specimen at hand. From Pfeiffer (1859) it becomes clear that this was one of the taxa described from “Mus. Cuming”. Breure (1978) re-described the species on the basis of additional material and established the first exact locality in state Espírito Santo. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006), whose reference to the figured type as “syntype” is erroneous.

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus sarcochilus (Pfeiffer, 1857).

“Pallatanga, Republic of Ecuador (Mr. Fraser)”.

“Pallatango Republic of Ecuador M^r Fraser”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style I.

“Long. 76, diam. 33 mill.”. Figured specimen H 75.8, D 38.4, W 6.7.

NHMUK 20140080, three syntypes, Fraser leg. (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. In the original paper he made twice an error in the name, which was corrected in Pfeiffer (1861a; without explicit comment), and Pfeiffer (1868; “sphalm. Saturanus”); this is treated as a lapsus calami under Art. 32.1 jo. 24.2.4 ICZN. Breure and Borrero (2008: 28) have pointed out that “Pallatanga” could not be assigned unequivocally to a locality, as it is found twice in modern gazetteers.

Orthalicidae, Porphyrobaphe (Porphyrobaphe) saturnus (Pfeiffer, 1860).

[Guatemala] “sylvas Petenensis”.

“forêt de Dolores”, taxon label in Morelet’s handwriting.

“Longit. 11 – Diam. 9 [mm]”. Figured specimen H 8.26, D 6.79, W 4.3.

NHMUK 1893.2.4.1128–1129, two syntypes (Morelet coll.).

Morelet did not state on how many specimens his description was based. On the board on which the labels are glued has been written in a later hand “Type largest / Test. Noviss. No. 101”. The locality on the label probably refers to the village of Dolores, Petén, Guatemala, which is thus the exact type locality. The current systematic position follows Thompson (2011: 130).

Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Simpulopsis) simula (Morelet, 1851).

“Paramba, Ecuador”.

“Paramba, Ecuador”, in da Costa’s handwriting.

“Long. 63, diam. 33 mm.”. Figured specimen H 62.6, D 36.6, W 5.9.

NHMUK 1907.11.21.114, lectotype (da Costa coll.).

da Costa did not state on how many specimens his description was based; the reference in Breure and Schouten (1985) to “HT BMNH 1907.11.21.114” has to be interpreted as lectotype designation under Art. 74.6 ICZN. The current systematic position follows Breure and Borrero (2008). However, it should be noted that Strebel (1909: 120)—after establishing the subgenus Oxyorthalicus—wrote “Die Skulpturbeschreibung [by da Costa] bezw. das Fehlen der erhabenen Streifen scheint mir für die Untergattung unwahrscheinlich”. Further anatomical and molecular research should thus shed more light on the taxonomic position.

Orthalicidae, Porphyrobaphe (Oxyorthalicus) subirroratus (da Costa, 1898).

Not given.

Not given [“Brazil” added in a later hand]. M.C. label style I, V.

“[L]ength of 28 mm”. Figured specimen H 29.0, D 14.8, W 7.9.

NHMUK 20130094, three probable paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).

Pilsbry did not state on how many specimens his description was based, and gave no type locality as he described what he regarded as a colour variation only. His figure was a black and white copy of Reeve’s figure. Salvador and Cavallari (2013) have given this variety specific status and designated a specimen from MZSP as neotype. In doing so they disregarded material in the NHMUK (Reeve) and ANSP (Pilsbry), and their designation did not fulfil the requirements of Art. 75 ICZN. Salvador et al. (2014) corrected this issue and selected the figure of Reeve 1848 [1848–1850]: pl. 45 fig. 284 as lectotype, in accordance with Recommendation 74B ICZN. The specimens found are accompanied by a Reeve label, but cannot be matched exactly to his figure; they are considered as probable paralectotypes.

Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus subtuszonatus (Pilsbry, 1899).

[Ecuador] “Quito. (Coll. Cuming)”.

“Quito”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style IV, V.

“Long. 70, diam. 31 mill.”. Figured specimen H 71.0, D 32.0, W 6.2.

NHMUK 1975464, lectotype; 1975465, two paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The specimen figured by Reeve has been selected lectotype by Breure (1978); the paralectotypes are less slender. On the basis of molecular analyses of Breure and Romero (2012), the genus Kara Strebel, 1910 has been placed in the family Orthalicidae (Breure 2011).

Orthalicidae, Kara thompsonii (Pfeiffer, 1845).

“Leimabamba, Peru, 8000 feet (O.T. Baron)”.

“Limabambo Peru”. M.C. label style IV.

Not given. Figured specimen H 82.2, D 46.7, W 6.3+.

NHMUK 20100507, holotype, Lobb leg. (Cuming coll.).

Fulton mentioned “[t]ype in British Museum (Cuming Collection)”, and said his taxon had been figured by Reeve. Reeve wrote: “It is with much gratification that I am enabled to give an original figure of the Bulimus labeo, figured at. Pl. XXXV, from a figure in the Zoological Journal. This shell, from the Cumingian collection, which I take to be identical with the lost specimen [see Pain 1959] (...). It was collected by Mr. Lobb at Limabamba, Peru; a district seldom visited by travellers, and the same in which Lieut. Mawe obtained the original specimen.” From this text it may be concluded that Reeve had only seen one specimen, identical to the lost type of Broderip; Reeve’s shell is thus the holotype of Fulton’s taxon. It is also clear that the altitude and collector data given by Fulton are erroneous. The current systematic position at species level follows Richardson (1993: 128).

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) yatesi (Pfeiffer, 1855).

“in provincia Antioquia, Columbiae (Schlim)”.

“Province of Antioquia / [...] Schlim [...]”, taxon label in Pfeiffer’s handwriting. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 65, diam. 29 mill.”. Figured specimen H 64.0, D 36.7, W 5+.

NHMUK 1975242, lectotype; 20100567, one paralectotype (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; besides the specimen corresponding to Pfeiffer’s dimensions, and selected lectotype by Breure and Schouten (1985), a second specimen was found designated as “var.” by Pfeiffer (1861: 169). The label accompanying the lectotype is partly fading away; the apex of this specimen is missing. This species has been listed by Richardson (1993: 120) under Porphyrobaphe Shuttleworth, 1856, and also under Plekocheilus Guilding, 1828 (Richardson 1995: 324). The reference of Linares and Vera (2012) for this species from Putumayo must be viewed with suspicion until the voucher specimen has been studied, as there may be a confusion with a local Plekocheilus species. This taxon has long been associated with Plekocheilus (Eurytus) Albers, 1850, but re-examination of the type material—the protoconch of the paralectotype proves to be smooth—plus recent collections in north-western Ecuador (Breure unpublished data) reveal that this taxon belongs to Clathrorthalicus Strebel, 1909. It may be closely allied to Bulimus corydon Crosse, 1869, B. magnificus Pfeiffer, 1848, and B. phoebus Pfeiffer, 1863; however, further anatomical and molecular studies should reveal the correct systematic position.

Orthalicidae, Clathrorthalicus victor (Pfeiffer, 1854) (comb. n.).

[West Indies, St. Vincent] “Damp forest, Upper Richmond valley, 2000 ft, on leaves of Artanthe (Piperacea) (H.H. Smith)”.

“Damp forest, Upper Richmond valley, 2000 ft, on leaves of Artanthe (Piperacea), St. Vincent, B.W.I.”.

“Longit. 13, diam. maj. 10 mm”. Figured specimen H 11.4, D 10.2, W 2.8.

NHMUK 1895.6.17.458, holotype, H.H. Smith leg.

E.A. Smith wrote “[o]nly a single specimen was collected.” Both body of the last whorl and the lip are partly broken in the holotype. The current systematic position follows Richardson (1995: 368).

Simpulopsidae, Simpulosis (S.) vincentina E.A. Smith, 1895.

[Peru] “Yanama”.

“Yanama. Pérou”, taxon label in Morelet’s handwriting.

“Longit. 58; diam. 25 (...) mill.”. Figured specimen H 48.6, D 26.9, W 5.4.

NHMUK 1893.2.4.167–168, [two paralectotypes] (Morelet coll.).

Morelet did not state on how many specimens his description was based; the two specimens mentioned by Breure (1978) were absent, although the labels of the lot have been found and a picture has been taken. The lectotype is present in the MNHG collection. This taxon has been associated with the genus Kara Strebel, 1910. On the basis of molecular analyses of Breure and Romero (2012), this genus has been placed in the family Orthalicidae (Breure 2011).

Orthalicidae, Kara yanamensis (Morelet, 1863).

“Meobamba, Eastern Peru (Mr. Yates)”.

“Meobamba, East Peru”. M.C. label style III.

“Long. 82, diam. 32 mill.”. Figured specimen H 84.3, D 39.7, W 7.2.

NHMUK 1975239/1, lectotype; 1975239/2–3, two paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).

Pfeiffer did not state on how many specimens his description was based; Pfeiffer (1856 [1854–1860]) mentioned “Aus H. Cumings’s und meiner Sammlung”. The specimen figured by Pfeiffer (1855c) was selected lectotype by Breure and Schouten (1985). The current systematic position follows Richardson (1993: 127) at the species level.

Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) yatesi (Pfeiffer, 1855).