Page 55 - Land Snails of New Mexico

Leonardlisteditasanexceedinglycommon lateCenozoicfossil ofthisname inthepresentorformerconfinesofthestateof inhisstudiesofeasternNew Mexico(LeonardandFrye,1975, Kansas. Possibly itrefers to the present Salado River Valley of Leonard,Frye,andGlass1975).Wu(1993:94,Figs.14,15) SocorroCo.,NewMexico,asavillageoriginallyknownas r e c o r d e d S. g r o s v e n o r i f r o m x e r i c h a b i t a t o f t h e L o w e r S o n o r a n
Life Zone in Doña Ana Co., and illustrated genitalia of a specimen. There has been, then, a strong tendency to assign N e w Mexico succineids, especially from lower, more xeric habitats, to S. grosvenori.
SantaRita(nowRiley)waslocatedthere.The SantaRitamining complex of Grant Co. is not in a valley location.
Hubricht described (1961) Succinea solastra from Hidalgo Co., Texas, and mapped it (1985:Map 130) from various localities in southern Texas. He observed (1961:32) that characters of the genitalia in S. solastra w e r e not distinguishable from those of snails that he allocated to S. grosvenori, thus making only a weak case for considering S. solastra as a valid species, distinctfrom grosvenori, which has almost a century of nomenclatural priority. Hubricht (1963:135) studied succineids from Alexandria, Louisiana, one of the T.L.'s given for Succinea grosvenori, and found specimens that he assigned to that species. He noted (1985:15) that S. grosvenori could be identified by use of characters of the genitalia, however, he also noted thatthe species "has been used in the past as a catchall for any succineid which could not be as readily identified as some otherspecies."
southernNew MexicoandTrans-PecosTexas.Itseemslikely that only one xeric-tolerant species is represented. The name grosvenori is suggested here out of deference to custom, but it is also clear that this succineid deserves further study.
Succineids from N e w Mexico also have been ascribed to
lymnaeid snail. Hubricht (1974:33) concluded that the name S. forsheyimustbeusedforthesnailwhichhasbeenknown asS. concordialis",becauseforsheyiwas thenextavailablesynonym, temporally, for the kind of snail that had long been assigned to S. concordialis. T h e T.L. of forsheyi is Rutersville, Texas, about halfway between Houston and Austin. As mapped by Hubricht (1985:Map 119), S. forsheyi is mainly a species of Texas, northward and northeastward to Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois,
S u c c i n e a a v a r a S a y , 1 8 2 4 . T h e T . L . o f S. a v a r a is g i v e n b y S a y
simply as "Northwest Territory." Despite the inadequate
information concerning the type locality and the fact that the type
consists only of an empty shell, the name has been applied
widely to North American succineids. Pilsbry (1948:838)
reported it from N e w Mexico and Arizona in "mountains
with scattered records in the southeastern states. H e m a p p e d it as occurring in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas, areas not far from northeastern N e w Mexico.
throughout the states." Franzen (1982) assigned succineids from
collections made by Metcalf in southern and extreme
northeastern N e w Mexico to S. avara. This included five
Wu reported(1993:93)thisspeciesfromthreelocalitiesin northeastern N e w Mexico, two in Quay, and one in San Miguel Co. Specimens were taken along streams, a typical habitat for Sforsheyi.
southern localities that ranged from arid basins of the
Chihuahuan Desert (Lower Sonoran Life Zone) up to forested
canyons in the Sacramento Mountains (Transition Zone). Four collectionlocalitiesinnortheasternNew Mexicowerefromthe
Upper Sonoran Zone. Franzen's study involved a careful analysis of shell proportions, reproductive, and other soft anatomy, and radulae. W e deem it unfortunate that she chose to use the
Genus Catinella
ambiguous name Succinea avara. Franzen's rationale for doing thisapparentlyreliedon similarityoftheNew Mexico material seen by her to published figures (Pilsbry, 1948:Fig. 442, B,C) ofsuccineidsfrom Arizona, which Pilsbry assigned toS. avara. Considering the dubious background of avara, this allocation seems to have had littlejustification. Itseems judicious to follow Turgeon(inprep.),who recommendsthatthenameavarano longerbeappliedtoanysuccineidtaxon.
Catinella vermeta (T. Say, 1829, as Succinea). New HarmonyDisseminator,2.230.T.L.:New Harmony,Posey Co., Indiana. (suboval ambersnail)
To compound problems involved with use of the name avara, Hubricht (1983:16-18) placed itin the genus Catinella, considering it to be conspecific with C. vermeta, discussed below.
As notedabove,Hubricht(1983:16-18)transferredSuccinea avara Say, 1824, to the genus Catinella, and synonymized it with C. vermeta Say, 1829, which became a junior synonym. In takingthisaction,HubrichtassumedthattheT.L."Northwest Territory" given by Say (1824) for S. avara referred to Minnesota only. H e further suggested that there were only 3 species of succineids in Minnesota, as that was what his collecting there had revealed. O f these 3, the one that had a shell morphology closest to the type specimen of avara was a Catinella of the kind that he had previously considered to be C. vermeta. The presence of"dirtand slime"on thetypeshellalso was used in making the allocation of avara to Catinella.
Unfortunately, the taxon grosvenori is only slightly less ambiguous than avara. The "type localities" of grosvenori, themselves, are ambiguous, because two are listed. Of these, Alexandria,Louisiana,isclearlyidentifiable,butthelocationof "Santa Rita Valley, Kansas" is not. There seems to be no place
Thereisagood chancethatHubrichtwas correctinallthis. However, the argument reliesto some extent on hypothesis. This
Ambiguitiesabound,butwhat isquiteclearisthatthereisat leastonesuccineidthatiscommon atthelowerelevationsof
Succinea forsheyi I. Lea, 1864. Proceedings of the AcademyofNaturalSciencesofPhiladelphia, :109.T.L. Rutersville, Texas. (spotted ambersnail)
Wu (1993:93)assignedsomesuccineidsfromnortheastern N e w Mexico to Succinea concordialis Gould, 1848. However, Hubricht (1974:33) determined that the types (4 remaining out of an original 5 specimens) of S. concordialis actually pertained to Pseudosuccinea columella, an aquatic to semiaquatic
49