Notes on the systematics, morphology and biostratigraphy of holoplanktic Mollusca, 27. Comments on a paper discussing Pteropoda (Gastropoda, Heterobranchia) systematics, recently (2019) published in Bollettino Malacologico

Comments and critical notes are necessary concerning a paper on pteropod systematics, published by J. Rampal in 2019 (Bollettino Malacologico 55-2: 145-186). In that paper the author makes a number of statements on systematics and taxonomy that cannot be ignored or left undiscussed. The following issues are treated in this paper: (1) Notwith­standing earlier discussions, the author maintains an ear­lier published interpretation of Cuvierina species which in the present paper (again) is demonstrated to be erroneous. The unnecessary introduction of Cuvierina major Rampal, 2019, as a replacement name for C. atlantica Bé, McClin­tock & Currie, 1972, is rejected, and the name Cuvierina atlantica once more is accepted as valid; (2) The repeated argument to demonstrate the validity of the name Cre­seis acicula Rang, 1828, over C. clava Rang, 1828, is incor­rect and superfluous: Creseis clava cannot be considered nomen oblitum, and the validity of the name C. acicula for the type species of Creseis Rang, 1828, was decided by the First Reviser, d’Orbigny (1836); (3) The genus Altaspiratella Korobkov, 1966, transferred to the Pseudothecosomata by Corse et al. (2013), repeated by Rampal (2019) is considered to be a true Euthecosomatous genus of the Limacinoidea. Species of Altaspiratella show a gradual despiralisation leading to the first recognised Creseidae; (4) The Eocene family Praecuvierinidae Janssen, 2005, is rejected by Ram­pal, who considers the two genera of that family to rep­resent real Cuvierina, ancestral to modern Cuvierinidae. The earliest real Cuvierina species, however, developed from an ancestral Ireneia root during the late Oligocene/ early Miocene (Janssen, 2005). Praecuvierinidae should be retained as an unsuccessful offshoot of (presumably) Cre­seidae; (5) The relationship of the genus Vaginella with the Cuvierinidae, as suggested by Rampal (2019 and earlier), is denied and Vaginella is retained in the Cavoliniidae fam­ily; (6) The revival of the classic genus Hyalaea Lamarck, 1799, is rejected. De Blainville (1821) is not its author and ‘Hyalaea’ cuspidata Bosc, 1802, is not its type species. The name Hyalaea Lamarck, 1799, is a junior synonym of Cavolinia Abildgaard, 1791, with monotype Cavolinia natans Abildgaard, 1791 = Anomia tridentata Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775; (7) Phylogenetic relationships given by Rampal (2019) are based on cladistical and molecular anal­yses that frequently are unclear or even contradictory. The molecular work was based on just two genes (coi and 28S). Divergence times of the various groups obtained from ‘molecular clock’ interpretations usually differ strongly from the fossil record evidence, mostly giving much older datings; (8) The introduction in Rampal (2019) of the taxa Heliconoididae and Thieleidae is accepted, be it with some doubt. The erection of Diacriinae and Telodiacria is con­sidered useful. A new family Hyalocylidae fam. nov. is introduced herein.