Search

Specimens obtained from ten populations of a Monacha species from the central Apennines were compared with six molecular lineages of Monacha cantiana s. l. (CAN-1, CAN-2, CAN-3, CAN-4, CAN-5, CAN-6) and two other Monacha species (M. cartusiana and M. parumcincta), treated as outgroup, by molecular (nucleotide sequences of two mitochondrial COI and 16S rDNA as well as two nuclear ITS2 and H3 gene fragments) and morphological (shell and genital anatomy) analysis. The results strongly suggest that these populations represent a separate species for which two names are available: the older Helix pantanellii De Stefani, 1879 and the junior M. ruffoi Giusti, 1973. The nucleotide sequences created well separated clades on each phylogenetic tree. Genital anatomy included several distinctive features concerning vaginal appendix, penis, penial papilla and flagellum; instead, shell characters only enabled them to be distinguished from M. cartusiana and M. parumcincta. Remarkably, populations of M. pantanellii show high morphological variability. Shell variability mainly concerns size, some populations having very small dimensions. Genital variability shows a more intricate pattern of all anatomical parts, being higher as regards the vagina and vaginal appendix. Despite this morphological variability, the K2P distance range of COI sequences between populations is narrow (0.2-4.5%), if we consider all but three of the 53 sequences obtained. This research confirmed that the species of Monacha and their molecularly distinguished lineages can only occasionally be recognised morphologically and that they have significant inter- and intrapopulation variability. The possibility of using an overall approach, including shell, genital and molecular evidence, was taken in order to establish a reliable taxonomic setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two new lineages CAN-5 and CAN-6 were recognised in four populations of Monacha cantiana (Montagu, 1803) s.l. from the Italian Apuan Alps by joint molecular and morphological analysis. They are different from other M. cantiana lineages known from English, Italian, Austrian and French populations, i.e. CAN-1, CAN-2, CAN-3 and CAN-4, as well as from the other Italian Monacha species used for comparisons (M. parumcincta and M. cartusiana). Although a definite taxonomic and nomenclatural setting seems to be premature, we suggest that the name or names for these new lineages as one or two species should be found among 19th century names (Helix sobara Mabille, 1881, H. ardesa Mabille, 1881, H. apuanica Mabille, 1881, H. carfaniensis De Stefani, 1883 and H. spallanzanii De Stefani, 1884). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Research in Ornithology / Rivista Italiana di Ornitologia is the property of PAGEPress and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 1776, the Sienese botanist Biagio Bartalini (1750--1822) published a catalogue of wild plants growing around Siena, adding an appendix on fossils found in the same area, that is the first monograph on Sienese fossils and one of the first works of its kind in Italy. This paper provides tentative identifications of the species and an analysis of the value and meaning of Bartalini's work. The catalogue reports 72 species, each denoted by a list of names applied to analogous living taxa. Identification of single entities is extremely problematical because it can only be attempted through analysis of the literature, since the original material cannot be traced. The most interesting report is the first record of a Euro-Mediterranean Pliocene species of Sthenorytis (Gastropoda, Epitoniidae). Though important, the catalogue is incomplete, with oversights and mistakes, suggesting little familiarity with the subject. Shortcomings include some inconsistencies in the species sequence, the report of giant clams and the absence of molluscs ubiquitous in the Sienese Pliocene and sharks. Nor is it true that it is the first Italian palaeontological work in which binomial nomenclature was used, as sometimes claimed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]