B. M. Landau & L. T. Groves 
Cypraeidae from the early Miocene of northern Venezuela 
NHMW); DFB coll., Dirk Fehse collection, Berlin, 
Germany: LACMIP Natural History Muséum of Los 
Angeles County, Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Department, Los Angeles, California, USA; NHMW, 
Naturhistorisches Muséum Wien, Vienna, Austria; 
NMB, Naturhistorisches Muséum Basel, Switzerland; 
PPP, Panama Palaeontologieal Project; TU, Tulane 
University, New Orléans, USA (Tertiary collections 
now at the National Muséum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution [USNM]); UCMP, University 
of California, Muséum of Paleontology, Berkeley, 
California, USA; and USGS, United States Geological 
Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA. 
Systematic Palaeontology 
Cypraeids can be a notoriously difficult group to work 
on, especially the fossils as the surface colour and 
pattern are usually lost. A single major taxonomie 
study has been undertaken in recent years on the 
tropical American Neogene cypraeid assemblages; 
Dolin (1991) revised the Cypraeoidea from the late 
early Miocene Chipola Formation of northern Florida, 
which is roughly contemporaneous with the Cantaure 
Formation. For the ease of comparison of the two 
faunas, the morphologie terminology of Dolin (1991: 
fïg. 1) and Dolin & Lozouet (2004: fîgs. 2a-c) are 
utilized. 
Cypraeid systematics has been greatly enhanced 
by the works of Meyer (2003, 2004) in particular his 
molecular data-base for the family. The phylogenetic 
implications of this new data outlined by Meyer 
(2004), and the systematic arrangement suggested by 
Lôpez Soriano (2006) based on Meyer’s work, are 
followed here. Higher level systematics follows that 
of Bouchet, et al. (2005). 
The shell formula proposed by Schilder (1935: 
327) has been given for each species. This formula is 
derived from measurements taken from ail available 
tully mature and normally formed specimens. It 
consists of the following éléments: [L (W-H) LT: CT], 
L: average length in mm, W: average width/ length 
ratio in %, H: average height/ length ratio in %, LT: 
normalized number ot labial teeth, CT: normalized 
number of columellar teeth. The normalized number 
of teeth - in relation to a shell of 25 mm length - is 
calculated as follows: T = 7 + [(c-7) x V (25/L)], T: 
normalized number of teeth, c: teeth counted, L: 
length. This shell formula is useful to highlight 
différences and similarities between species, but 
should not be used on its own to distinguish between 
species. 
C lass GASTROPODA Cuvier, 1791 
C lade HYPSOGAS TROPODA Ponder & Lindberg 
1997 
Clade CAENOGASTROPODA Cox, 1959 
Clade LITTORINIMORPHA Golikov & 
Starobogatov, 1975 
Superfamily CYPRAEOIDEA Rafinesque, 1815 
Family CYPRAEIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 
Subfamily CYPRAEINAE Rafinesque, 1815 
Genus Muracypraea Woodring, 1957 
Type species: Cypraea mus Linnaeus, 1758, by 
original désignation. 
Description. Shell pyriform to triangular of small to 
moderately large size (30 to 75 mm); posterior part of 
dorsal surface smooth, roughened, warty, or 
bituberculate; outer lip, wide, slightly constricted near 
anterior end; fossula indistinct, wide, shallow, and 
smooth. 
Discussion. A consensus among specialists on the 
generic assignment for this group of species is lacking 
as is an agreement of the number of living and fossil 
species (Woodring, 1959; Petuch, 1979, 1987; 
Doneddu & Manunza 1996; Lorenz & Hubert, 2000; 
Meyer, 2004). This may in part be due to the 
inadéquate description of the type species by 
Woodring (1957). Muracypraea was originally 
proposed as a subgenus of Cypraea. Lorenz & Hubert 
(2000) considered “ Muracypraea ” an informai group 
within Siphocypraea Heilprin, 1887 which was 
proposed as a subgenus within the genus Cypraea. 
Some species of the S. problematica complex hâve a 
strongly curled comma-shaped posterior channel that 
conceals the spire. Muracypraea was proposed for the 
Recent Cypraea mus Linnaeus, 1758 and the related 
fossil species that possess a more normal posterior, 
wide aperture, and commonly well-developed dorsal 
callosities, dorsal tubercules, and occasionally a 
central spike-like dorsal projection. Siphocypraea 
ranges from the early Pliocène to Pleistocene and is 
restricted to the southeastern United States whereas 
Muracypraea ranges from the early Miocene to 
Recent of the Caribbean Basin to Peru and 
southeastern California. Doneddu & Manunza (1996) 
and Fehse (in press, a) considered Muracypraea a 
junior synonym of Barycypraea Schilder, 1927. They 
drew attention to the long géologie history of the 
genus with fossil représentatives in the Indo-Pacific 
(see Dharma, 2005; Fehse (in press, b) and the 
Caribbean Tertiary. Doneddu & Manunza (1996) 
traced the origins of the M. mus complex to Cypraea 
(Bernayia) [,?/c] saltoensis (Clark in Clark & Durham, 
1946) ot the Eocene of Colombia. However, close 
examination of the poorly preserved holotype makes it 
clear that a conclusive generic assignment is not 
possible, and détermination of a possible new genus is 
beyond the scope of this paper. Kay (1996) and 
Groves (1997) used Muracypraea as a full genus. 
Woodring (1959) considered ail Miocene specimens 
from the circum Caribbean basin to be Cypraea 
(Muracypraea) henekeni (lectotype; Figs 144-145). 
However, it is notable that specimens from the 
Miocene Gatun Formation of Panama are different 
from those of Venezuela, Trinidad, Colombia, and the 
Dominican Republic. Most specimens from the Gatun 
Formation examined by the senior author hâve an 
2 
