Annotated type catalogue of the Megaspiridae, Orthalicidae, and Simpulopsidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Orthalicoidea) in the Natural History Museum, London

Abstract The type status is described for 65 taxa of the Orthalicoidea, classified within the families Megaspiridae (14), Orthalicidae (30), and Simpulopsidae (20); one taxon is considered a nomen inquirendum. Lectotypes are designated for the following taxa: Helix brephoides d’Orbigny, 1835; Simpulopsis cumingi Pfeiffer, 1861; Bulimulus (Protoglyptus) dejectus Fulton, 1907; Bulimus iris Pfeiffer, 1853. The type status of Bulimus salteri Sowerby III, 1890, and Strophocheilus (Eurytus) subirroratus da Costa, 1898 is now changed to lectotype according Art. 74.6 ICZN. The taxa Bulimus loxostomus Pfeiffer, 1853, Bulimus marmatensis Pfeiffer, 1855, Bulimus meobambensis Pfeiffer, 1855, and Orthalicus powissianus var. niveus Preston 1909 are now figured for the first time. The following taxa are now considered junior subjective synonyms: Bulimus marmatensis Pfeiffer, 1855 = Helix (Cochlogena) citrinovitrea Moricand, 1836; Vermiculatus Breure, 1978 = Bocourtia Rochebrune, 1882. New combinations are: Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) Rochebrune, 1882; Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) aequatoria (Pfeiffer, 1853); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) anthisanensis (Pfeiffer, 1853); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) aquila (Reeve, 1848); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) badia (Sowerby I, 1835); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) bicolor (Sowerby I, 1835); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) caliginosa (Reeve, 1849); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) coagulata (Reeve, 1849); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) cotopaxiensis (Pfeiffer, 1853); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) filaris (Pfeiffer, 1853); Kara indentata (da Costa, 1901); Clathrorthalicus magnificus (Pfeiffer, 1848); Simpulopsis (Eudioptus) marmartensis (Pfeiffer, 1855); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) nucina (Reeve, 1850); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) ochracea (Morelet, 1863); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) peaki (Breure, 1978); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) petiti (Pfeiffer, 1846); Clathrorthalicus phoebus (Pfeiffer, 1863); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) polymorpha (d’Orbigny, 1835); Scholvienia porphyria (Pfeiffer, 1847); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) purpurata (Reeve, 1849); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) quechuarum Crawford, 1939; Quechua salteri (Sowerby III, 1890); Kuschelenia (Bocourtia) subfasciata Pfeiffer, 1853; Clathrorthalicus victor (Pfeiffer, 1854). In an addedum a lectotype is being designated for Bulimulus (Drymaeus) interruptus var. pallidus Preston, 1909. An index is included to all taxa mentioned in this paper and the preceding ones in this series (Breure and Ablett 2011, 2012, 2014).

data from the senior author; the family classification is amended as proposed by Breure and Romero (2012). It may be noted that ongoing phylogenetic research may alter the classification. Within the family, genus and species level taxa are presented in alphabetical order.

Orthalicus (Porphyrobaphe) buckleyi Higgins, 1872
Figs 3iv-v, L3iii Orthalicus ( Remarks. 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.

Bulimus consimilis Reeve, 1848
Figs 1iii-iv, L4ii Bulimus consimilis Reeve 1848Reeve [1848Reeve -1850 Remarks. 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(Reeve [1848(Reeve -1850: v); the locality "Brazil" has been added in a later hand.
Type material. NHMUK 1866.1.3.7, one syntype (ex Guppy). Remarks. 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  Type material. NHMUK 1975486, lectotype and one paralectotype (Cuming coll.). Remarks. 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.
Type locality. "Peruvian side of the Amazon".
Type material. NHMUK 19601622, lectotype (ex DeBurgh). Remarks. 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. Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) deburghiae (Reeve, 1859).

Simpulopsis decussata Pfeiffer, 1857
Figs 25iv-vii, L5iv Simpulopsis decussata Pfeiffer 1857a: 260;Breure 1978: 232;Breure 1979: 134  Type material. NHMUK 1975488, lectotype (Cuming coll.). Remarks. 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). Remarks. 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.

Pupa (Megaspira) elata Gould, 1847
Figs 2i-iv, L6iii Pupa ( NHMUK 1987060, three paralectotypes (ex Gould). Remarks. 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.
Remarks. Pfeiffer, in his original description, referred to Sowerby I 1838in Sowerby I and II 1832, 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 andPfeiffer 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.
Current systematic position. Megaspiridae, Thaumastus foveolatus (Reeve, 1849). Remarks. 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).

Bulimus fraseri
Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) fraseri (Pfeiffer, 1858). Remarks. 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).

Bulimus gloriosus
Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) deburghiae (Reeve, 1859 Remarks. 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.

Remarks.
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).
Remarks. 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  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).
Remarks. 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 restudying 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.
Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Kara indentata (da Costa, 1901) (comb. n.). Remarks. 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.

Bulimus (Thaumastus) insolitus Preston, 1909
Current systematic position. Megaspiridae, Thaumastus insolitus (Preston, 1909). Remarks. 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.

Remarks.
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).

Remarks.
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).

Bulimus kelletti Reeve, 1850 Figs 19iii-iv, L11ii
Bulimus Remarks. 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.
Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) kelletti (Reeve, 1850). Remarks. 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 Thaumastus s.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. Current systematic position. Megaspiridae, Thaumastus loxostomus (Pfeiffer, 1853).

Remarks.
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(Reeve [1849(Reeve -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 (1909Pilsbry ( [1908Pilsbry ( -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, andB. 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.
Type material. NHMUK 1907.11.22.24, lectotype (da Costa coll., ex Grateloup). Remarks. 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 Coll n ." 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.

Bulimus marmatensis Pfeiffer, 1855 Figs 28i-iii, L12ii
Bulimus Remarks. 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.
Current systematic position. Simpulopsidae, Simpulopsis (Eudioptus) citrinovitrea (Moricand, 1836). Remarks. 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.

Orthalicus mars Pfeiffer, 1861
Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Orthalicus mars Pfeiffer, 1861. Remarks. 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.

Simpulopsis miersi Pfeiffer, 1857 Figs 27iv-vi, L13iii
Simpulopsis Remarks. 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 Remarks. 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 . Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Liguus murreus (Reeve, 1849).

Orthalicus powissianus niveus Preston, 1909 Figs 17i-ii, L14iii
Orthalicus powissianus var. Remarks. 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 Remarks. 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). Current systematic position. Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus obliquus (Reeve, 1849).

Bulinus opalinus Sowerby I, 1833
Figs 22iv-v, L15i Bulinus Remarks. 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 NHMUK 1975416, lectotype;1975417, two paralectotypes (Cuming coll.).
Remarks. 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.

Helix phlogera d'Orbigny, 1835
Figs 13iii-iv, L15iii Helix phlogera d'  Orbigny (1838Orbigny ( [1834Orbigny ( -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 Remarks. 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 Remarks. 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.
Remarks. 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.
Current systematic position. ?Orthalicidae, Scholvienia porphyria (Pfeiffer, 1847) (comb. n.). Remarks. 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 speci-mens appear to be subadult; further studies are needed to ascertain the taxonomic position of this taxon. The current systematic position follows Simone (2006). Current systematic position. Megaspiridae, Thaumastus requieni (Pfeiffer, 1853). Remarks. 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.

Bulimus salteri Sowerby III, 1890 Figs 13i-ii, L17i
Bulimus salteri Sowerby III 1890: 578, pl. 50 fig. 4 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.
Current systematic position. ?Orthalicidae, Quechua salteri (Sowerby III, 1890) (comb. n.). Remarks. 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.

Remarks.
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.

Remarks.
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).

Strophocheilus (Eurytus) subirroratus da Costa, 1898 Figs 16i-iv, L17iv
Strophocheilus ( Remarks. 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 Remarks. 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.  have given this variety specific status and designated a specimen from MZSP as neotype. In doing so they disregarded material in the NHMUK (Reeve)  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.
Current systematic position. Simpulopsidae, Leiostracus subtuszonatus (Pilsbry, 1899). Remarks. 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).

Porphyrobaphe vicaria Fulton, 1896 Figs 20i-ii, L18i
Bulimus , 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).
Current systematic position. Orthalicidae, Sultana (Metorthalicus) yatesi . Remarks. 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, andB. phoebus Pfeiffer, 1863; however, further anatomical and molecular studies should reveal the correct systematic position.

Remarks.
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).

I. Nomen inquirendum
The systematic position of the following taxon cannot be ascertained at present, and it is herein considered a nomen inquirendum.  NHMUK 1907.5.3.163, lectotype (ex Sowerby and Fulton). Remarks. Fulton did not state on how many specimens his description was based. The specimen found agrees with Fulton's measurements and is now designated lectotype (design. n.). The sculpture of the protoconch is not with axial wrinkles as usual in Protoglyptus Pilsbry, 1897, but with axial wrinkles, partly broken into granules. It may be noted that all species currently classified with this genus occur in the West Indies (Breure and Romero 2012;Breure and Ablett 2014). Breure (2011) retained this taxon with this genus, but expressed doubts and suggested further research. The surface of the teleoconch has spiral series of small granules, denoting an epidermis covered with hairs when fresh; this has both been observed in some species of Rhinus Albers, 1860, and Naesiotus Albers, 1850. Although the shape of the shell cannot be conclusive evidence for generic classification, it may be noted that Fulton compared this species to Helix crepundia d'Orbigny, 1835, which has been classified with Naesiotus sensu lato (Breure and Ablett 2014). Only further anatomical and molecular work can shed more light on the correct systematic position of this taxon.

II. Types not located.
Type material of the following taxa, previously known to be extant in the NHMUK, has not been found during our study.
Dimensions. Not given. Remarks. The two syntypes mentioned by Breure and Schouten (1985) could not be located during our research. The size of these specimens falls within the variation mentioned by Pfeiffer (1853d: "71-83 mill.") for material from Cuming's and Dennison's collection.  Remarks. Seven specimens were known to be present (cf. the registration book, which has an undated note in pencil "6 missing"), but none could not be found. This taxon has been mentioned under two different species by Richardson (1993: 36, as synonym of Bulinus janeirensis Sowerby I, 1833;1993: 47, as (1854) with "B.M." [NHMUK], but the type material has not been located during our research.

Bulimus vitrinoides Reeve, 1848
Bulimus vitrinoides Reeve 1848Reeve [1848Reeve -1850 Dimensions. Not given. Remarks. The syntype material mentioned by Breure (1979) has not been located during our study. It is possible that this material has not been registered. However, the NHMUK copy of Reeve (1848Reeve ( -1850 for Bulimus vitrinoides has the species name crossed out and 'citrino-vitreus Moricand' penciled in. In the general collection one lot was found (registered NHMUK 1841.4.28.110); one specimen matches the illustration but is smaller. These specimens are not considered type material as they are not from the Cuming collection but were 'purchased of M. M. Parreys d'Vienna'.

III. Types not found in NHMUK, but expected to be present.
The following taxa were expected to be represented with type material; however, no material could be found matching the data in the original publication. Bourcier", and presumed to be in NHMUK but not found. specimens of this species in South America, but without being able to ascertain its locality". The material found is from the Cuming collection, and has a label "Central America"; since it comprises four specimens it is not considered as type material.  (Richardson 1993: 120) and Drymaeus (Richardson 1995: 161); we consider only the latter classification to be correct.

Bulimus senilis Gassies, 1869
Bulimus senilis Gassies 1869: 71. Placostylus senilis; Neubeurt et al. 2009: 110, fig. 18  Remarks. Neubert et al. (2009) suggested that the type locality may be erroneous as this taxon is only known from Ile des Pins and Koutoumo. See also their discussion on the variation within this species and consider their general remark that this species is "either recently extinct and/or represent morphological variations of extant taxa". The lectotype selected by Neubert et al. (2009) Breure (1974) have to be considered as lost, as-despite repetitive searches-they could not be re-found during our research.
Remarks. This varietal name has been treated as unavailable under Art. 45.6 ICZN by Breure and Ablett (2014: 96). Paul Callomon (pers. commun.) has suggested that this should be reconsidered and doubted if a lectotype of the nominal name already existed.
Our opinion is as follows: a) Preston undoubtedly had a series of specimens at hand when describing Bulimulus (Drymaeus) interruptus; both the wording "to be greatly variable" and "its principle forms" are indicative of this. b) Breure (1979: 120) Köhler (1997) also concluded that this taxon was described from several specimens but said "A holotype has not been designated. Therefore, the present specimen [ZMB 59597] is a syntype. Consequently, the specimen in the BMNH referred to as holotype by Breure (1979) is a syntype". Overlooking, as explained in the previous item, the lectotype designation under Art. 74.6 (see previous point). d) Reconsidering the (un)availability under Art. 45.6, it is important to note that var.
pallidus was proposed before 1961 and has to be treated as subspecific (see the contributions of Steve Lingafelter and Doug Yanega on the Taxacom listing, http:// to.ly/zFZO). It may be noted that the only reference to this taxon after Preston's publication is in Baker (1926: 44), who regarded it as a synonym of Bulimus granadensis Pfeiffer, 1848 (see also Richardson 1995: 133). e) While Bulimulus (Drymaeus) interruptus var. pallidus is an available name, we concur with Baker (1926) and Richardson (1995) to consider this taxon as a synonym of the nominal form.

VII. Corrigenda to part 3, Bulimulidae (Breure and Ablett 2014)
The 'Systematic list of taxa arranged in generic order' on page 3-7 should be replaced by the following text: