Boysidia hupeana

Boysidia hupeana (Gredler, 1901) Figs 109 Hypselostoma hupeanum Gredler, 1901: 151. Boysidia (Paraboysidia) hupeana — Pilsbry 1917: 206; Haas 1937: 8–9. Paraboysidia hupeana — van Benthem Jutting 1950: 38; Zilch 1984: 165. Paraboysidia kitteli Maassen, 1999: 123, figs 5–7. syn. nov. Boysidia (Paraboysidia) hubeina [sic] — Chen and Zhang 2002: 692. Boysidia (Boysidia) gongyaoshanensis Yang, Zhang & Chen, 2012: 550 (English description), 550–551 (Chinese description), figs 1–3. syn. nov. Type material examined. Indonesia • 1 paratypes of P. kitteli; from the type locality; 17 Aug. 1993; ex. coll. Hemmen, Wiesbaden; coll. PGB • 1 paratype of P. kitteli; from the type locality; 16 June 1990; ex. coll. Hemmen, Wiesbaden; coll. PGB • 4 paratypes of P. kitteli; from the type locality; Aug. 1993; ex. coll. W. J. M. Maassen; coll. PGB. Additional material examined. China • 1 shell; Badung, Hubei, coll. Moellendorff; SMF 10775. Type localities. “ Südwest Hupé ”, China (B. hupeana); “ Gongyao Hill, Xingyi County (25°N, 104°08'E), Guizhou province, China ” (B. gongyaoshanensis); “ N. Sumatra, Karo Highlands, Kuta Buluh, 40 km N of Brastagi, near the entrance of the cave Liangdehar in leaf litter at the foot of limestone rocks ” (B. kitteli). Remarks. Boysidia (Boysidia) gongyaoshanensis, described from Gongyao Hill, Xingyi County (25°N, 104°08'E), Guizhou province, China, is herein treated a junior synonym of B. hupeana since no morphological differences were noticed. Also, no differences in shell morphology were noticed between B. kitteli and B. hupeana even though they are described from localities which are ca 3200 km from each other. Even though the distance is enormous, they are treated conspecific due to the lack of conchological differences. Both new synonyms were not compared to B. hupeana in their respective original descriptions (Maassen 1999; Yang et al. 2012).