12 



A.R. MEAD 



and Preston as the source. These syntypes are currently to be 

 found in the following museums: BMNH (3: 

 no. 1908. 7. 1.13-14, and MacAndrew Coll.), NMW (Melvill- 

 Tomlin Coll. no.1955. 158.826; Oliver, 1983:1), IRSN 

 (Dautzenberg Coll. no. 169), ZMB (no.62345), MNHN, 

 MRAC (no.5760), RMNH, UMMZ (Bryant Walker Coll. 

 no. 142031). These vary in size from 6V2, 63.0 x 31.3 to 5 l h, 

 44.2 x 25.7. Preston probably placed his presumed new 

 species in Callistoplepa because of the very thin shell, the 

 Cameroon type locality, and the fact that the size, general 

 shape and peripheral colour pattern of his specimens were 

 reminiscent of C. barriana. However, upon examination of 

 the shell sculpture in the present study, all syntypes were 

 found to be juvenile Achatina bandeirana Morelet, 1860. 



In Cameroon, A. bandeirana and the closely related A. 

 iostoma Pfeiffer, 1854 and A. balteata Reeve, 1849 are 

 sympatric and it is not uncommon to find mixed lots of these 

 three species in museum collections. Preston, himself, appar- 

 ently had a mixed lot from which his syntypes were selected. 

 He sent a 'cotype' of Callistoplepa tiara to Dupuis (IRSN, 

 General Coll.); however, its locality record was simply 'Cam- 

 eroon'. After Dupuis (1923) examined this specimen, he 

 concluded that it probably was a juvenile A iostoma. In 1934, 

 Bequaert also saw this specimen and confirmed Dupuis' 

 conclusion. Their identifications were corroborated in the 

 present study because this 'cotype' specimen revealed the 

 following characters in contrast to those of the syntypes 

 identified as A. bandeirana: 1) upper whorls not convex, but 

 form a nearly straight-sided pyramid; 2) apex more acute 

 rather than blunt; 3) a slight but apparent peripheral carina is 

 present in the early whorls; and 4) sculpture is formed by 

 finer, more uniform, elevated beads that do not evolve into 

 minute prosocline arcuate welts in the sixth to seventh whorls 

 (cf Bequaert & Clench 1934a fig. 3). This last character is 

 diagnostic for A. bandeirana; but it is inadequately developed 

 in the very immature specimen of five to six whorls, thus such 

 individuals of the three species may appear to be alike. 



Dupuis' unique 'cotype' persuaded Bequaert to assume 

 that all syntypes of C. tiara were juvenile A. iostoma and he 

 so identified them in collections (BMNH, IRSN, ZMB, 

 RMNH) and in his publications (Bequaert, 1950:39; B. & 

 Clench 1934a:13; 1934c:114). Dautzenberg was similarly 

 impressed and was moved to place with his 'cotype no. 169' an 

 added notation, 'Erreur de Preston, C'est un jeune Achatina 

 iostoma Pfeiffer'. This was unfortunate because Dautzen- 

 berg's specimen, with full C. tiara field data, is shown now to 

 be an immature A. bandeirana. IRSN thus has a true syntype 

 in the Dautzenberg Collection and questionable 'cotype' in 

 the General Collection, which latter is here confirmed to be 

 A. iostoma and not a bona fide syntype. A somewhat similar 

 situation exists at BMNH, which has three valid syntypes. A 

 fourth specimen in the Connolly Collection (BMNH 

 no. 1937: 12.30.3684) was sent by Preston and labelled 'Callis- 

 toplepa tiara Pr.' (apparently in his writing) but without any 

 locality data, except 'Bitz' in the accession book. Connolly 

 had his doubts about the identification and relabelled it 

 'Achatina ? balteata Rve juv.' Bequaert also saw it in 1933 

 and referred to it as A. iostoma. This now proves to be still 

 another juvenile A. bandeirana and is here considered a 

 doubtful eleventh syntype of C. tiara. 



It should be noted that A. bandeirana is a wide spread, 

 highly variable Lower Guinea species complex involving A. 

 b. arenaria Crowley & Pain, 1961; A. b. mayumbensis C. & 

 P., 1961; A. paivaeana Morelet, 1866, (1868); and A. dohrni- 



ana Pfeiffer, 1870. It is found from Cameroon to northern 

 Angola (7° N-10° S) and fans north and east into Gabon, 

 Central African Republic, Congo Republic and Zaire. A 

 study of this complex is in progress. 



Preston did not designate a type, but he retained in his own 

 collection the specimen that was illustrated in his description 

 of this species. This syntype is here selected as the lectotype 

 (measurements: 6; 49.4 x 26.7; aperture 30.9 x 13.8; last 

 whorl 40.0 mm). It is now in Tervuren (MRAC no.5760) and 

 can be precisely identified by the unique configuration of the 

 map-like pattern on the last whorl. This pattern is caused by 

 the irregular lifting up of the thin outer periostracal layer 

 from the durable inner periostracal layer, allowing an air 

 space between. This produces blotchy grey-white patches, 

 which probably provide cryptic coloration. The juvenile and 

 mature specimens of both A. bandeirana and A. iostoma 

 commonly have these patches, which have been referred to as 

 'hydrophanous streaks' (Bequaert & Clench, 1934a: 15). They 

 apparently are homologous to the conspicuous white flecks 

 on the shells of Callistoplepa barriana and C. shuttleworthi 

 and may have contributed to Preston's decision to put his 

 species in this genus. 



Leptocala 



Petitia 



Jousseaume, 1884:171 (non Chitty, 1857); d'Ailly, 



1896:71; Bequaert, 1950:138 (type species: Petitia petitia 



Jousseaune, 1884). 

 Leptocala 



Ancey, 1888:70, 1898:92 (type species: Achatina mollicella 



Morelet, 1860); Thiele, 1929:560; Bequaert & Clench, 



1934c: 116; Ortiz & Ortiz, 1959:24. 

 Achatina (Leptocala) 



Pilsbry, 1904:72; Spence, 1928:213; Bequaert, 1950:138; 



Zilch, 1959:366; Vaught, 1988:89. 

 Achatina (Leptocola) 



Kobelt, 1910:66 (non Gerstaecker, 1883). 

 Leptocala (Leptocala) 



Bequaert & Clench 1934b:272. 



Pilsbry (1904:73, 75) reduced genus Leptocala to subgeneric 

 rank in Achatina and placed within it his new Section 

 Leptocallista. Thiele (1929:560) returned Ancey's Leptocala 

 to generic rank and retained within it Sections Leptocala and 

 Leptocallista. Bequaert & Clench (1934b:274) elevated these 

 sections to genus and subgenus, respectively. In 1950, 

 Bequaert placed both names as subgenera of Achatina. Zilch 

 (1959:366) followed suite. The present studies of the soft 

 anatomies demonstrate that these two genus-group taxa are 

 in separate subfamilies because the East African Leptocallista 

 is anatomically allied to Lissachatina and therefore is an 

 achatinine. 



Bequaert & Clench (1934b, c) announced that the Cam- 

 eroonian Pseudoglessula efulensis Preston, 1908 might belong 

 to Leptocala and stated that the type could not be located in 

 the British Museum. The holotype (no. 5309) and the 

 paratype (no. 97435) of this species were found during the 

 present study in Tervuren (MRAC) and clearly proved to 

 belong to the Subulinidae. Ancey (1888:71) incorrectly 

 placed Achatina polychroa Morelet, 1866 in Leptocala; 

 Bequaert (1950:48) believed it belongs in subgenus Pintoa of 

 Achatina. A final decision depends upon a study of its soft 

 anatomy. 



