Pseudonerinea pseudomelaniformis Grundel, Keupp, Lang & Nutzel 2022

Pseudonerinea? pseudomelaniformis Gründel, Keupp, Lang & Nützel, 2022 Plate 12: figs 4–6 1965 – Pseudonerinea clio (d’Orbigny) – Cox: 172, pl. 30, figs 5–6. ? 1997 – Ceritella (Fibula) cottaldina (d’Orb.) – Fischer and Weber: 31, pl. 4, fig. 10 2019 – Pseudomelania? sp. 2 – Gründel, Keupp and Lang: 100, pl. 1, figs 7–9. * 2022 – Pseudonerinea? pseudomelaniformis n. sp. – Gründel, Keupp, Lang and Nützel 2022: 183; pl. 2, figs 1–7. Material. 27 specimens, illustrated specimens SNSB-BSPG 2016 XXI 1894 –1895. Description. Shell very slender; a specimen is 32 mm high; whorls high; whorl face straight; suture slightly impressed; transition from whorl face to base evenly rounded; whorls smooth, at least on later whorls; aperture damaged, high oval with adapical outlet and an oblique siphonal abapical canal; inner columellar lip widened and detached. Remarks. Many species with a similar shell shape have been described, particularly in the genus Pseudomelania. Without knowledge of the aperture (it is unknown or insufficiently known in most cases), a comparison of these species is only possible to a limited extent. Nudivagus? sp. 2 sensu Gründel et al. (2019) has a wider shell with lower whorls, a spiral sculpture on the whorl face, and lacks a widened and detached columellar inner lip. Ceritella (Fibula) cottaldina (d’Orbigny) as depicted by Fischer and Weber (1997) is larger according to its holotype, but shows no other significant differences. The shape of the aperture is unclear: According to d’Orbigny (1851), it is broadly rounded abapically, however according to Fischer and Weber (1997), it shows the onset of a (not preserved?) channel. If P. cottaldina has an abapical canal, then it is probably identical to P. pseudomelaniformis.