identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
E5EA46B08D12544EA51C425020CF99E0.text	E5EA46B08D12544EA51C425020CF99E0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phreatodrobia bulla Perez & Castaneda 2023	<div><p>Phreatodrobia bulla Perez &amp; Castaneda sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 7, 8</p><p>Phreatodrobia cf imitata Perez et al., 2020, pp. 7.</p><p>Phreatodrobia conica Gibson et al., 2021b, pp. 33.</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>USA, Texas, Bell County, Hidden Springs (30.9382, -97.6044).</p><p>Material examined.</p><p><a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.6044&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.9382" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.6044/lat 30.9382)">All</a> sites are in Texas, USA. Holotype and Paratypes - Bell County, Hidden Springs, collected by Peter Diaz (30.9382, -97.6044), 27 October 2021 (ANSP 494658, 494660) .</p><p>Additional material examined.</p><p>- Bell County, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.7419&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.4818" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.7419/lat 30.4818)">Salado Springs Complex</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.7419&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.4818" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.7419/lat 30.4818)">Anderson Spring</a> (30.9441, -97.5347); <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.7419&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.4818" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.7419/lat 30.4818)">Stagecoach Inn Cave</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.7419&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.4818" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.7419/lat 30.4818)">Salado</a> (30.9432, -97.5375), 1 May 2020, P. Diaz (ABC 005618); <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.7419&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.4818" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.7419/lat 30.4818)">Copperhead Spring Cave, Ft.</a> Cavazos (confidential location); Bent Oak Spring (30.8916, -97.7092), 17 August 2022 (ABC 005616); Gault Archaeological Site Spring (30.8916, -97.7095), 8 June 2019 (ABC 005615); Robertson Springs, Creek Springs (30.9445, -97.5413); Solana Ranch Spring (30.8997, -97.6390), 25 March 2020 (ABC 005620), P. Diaz; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-97.7419&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.4818" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -97.7419/lat 30.4818)">Spicewood Creek</a> Pipe Spring (confidential location); Spring 23-398, Ft. Cavazos (confidential location); Camp Tahuaya, Tahuaya Spring Pool (31.0087, -97.5093). - Williamson County, PC Spring (30.4818, -97.7419), 23 March 2023 (ABC 005617) .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Shell translucent, conical, with nearly smooth teleoconch, dome-shaped protoconch with wrinkles. Aperture round to slightly ovate, usually separated from body whorl in adults. Mantle tissue white, unpigmented. Sharply pointed median cusp of central radular teeth with small basal cusp. Penis long, equal width most of the length, tapering sharply near tip, loosely to tightly coiled, length 2-3 times length of snout.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Shell translucent, usually pale tan, conical with 3.5-4.5 well rounded whorls (Fig. 7A-D). Shell height ranges from 1.1-2.39 mm. Average shell measurements (n = 14 adult individuals): height = 1.86 mm (SD = 0.5), width = 1.22 mm (SD = 0.3), aperture height = 0.78 mm (SD = 0.2), aperture width = 0.77 mm (SD = 0.2), number of whorls = 4.0 (SD = 0.5). Sutures deeply impressed giving whorls a very rounded aspect. Body whorl wider than others, which taper steeply to a dome-shaped embryonic whorl. Spire with distinctive “bubble” or dome shape. Dome-like embryonic whorl sculptured with irregular granules and wrinkles (Fig. 7E-G), teleoconch smooth, without visible sculpture, except under high-magnification. Regular growth lines visible on recent shells. In most individuals, aperture fully detached from previous whorl (appressed only at top of aperture in some smaller individuals). Aperture ovate, with simple, prosocline, reflected lip that flares at base. Umbilicus present.</p><p>Operculum round to broadly ovate, concave, amber in color, deeply concave, with narrow band of thinner material on outer margin, tapering to a point but without nuclear peg (Fig. 7H). Opercular growth lines vague, simple. Nucleus slightly eccentric, central, paucispiral. Muscle attachment scar distinct and thickened toward edges, with undifferentiated edges. Attachment region callus thin.</p><p>Body visible through translucent shell. No eyes present. Ctenidium composed of triangular filaments, approximately as broad as high, stretching from posterior portion of pallial cavity nearly to mantle edge. Osphradium oval shaped, elongate, positioned opposite posterior portion of ctenidium, occupying ~25% of pallial cavity. Pallial portion of intestine with loops in posterior portion of pallial cavity similar to P. imitata . Fecal pellets in the coiled intestine usually clearly visible through the shell, bright orange, oval-elongate in shape (Fig. 7I). Rectum ends just before mantle edge.</p><p>Snout narrow, longer than wide, deeply lobate distally, with folds along sides. Tentacles tapered, with scattered granules or pigmentation at base, length equal to snout. No eye visible. Foot rounded anteriorly, with lateral wings. Penis base well behind right tentacle, slightly wider and with deeper folds near base, tapering quickly to a consistent length until sharply tapering at tip. Slight folds continue until midway along penis length. Penis long, loosely to tightly coiled, curved and 2-3 times longer than snout (Fig. 7J).</p><p>Central radular tooth with deeply indented dorsal edge; central cusp longer than adjacent cusps; lateral cusps 5-6 on each side, evenly decreasing in width towards tip, sharply pointed; basal cusps small, triangular; basal socket deep, v-shaped. Lateral tooth rectangular, with a longer central cusp and 4 (inner) - 7 (outer) cusps on either side. Some laterals with wide deposit down mid-line. Base of lateral tooth with triangular, well excavated ventral process, tapering to wing. Inner marginal teeth with ~25-30 cusps, similar in length, decreasing slightly in outermost cusps. Tooth surface tapering towards outer wing with narrow neck before flaring smoothly towards the base. Outer marginal teeth rounded, spoon-shaped, wide at top, smoothly curving, with 12-20 small cusps, tapering slightly to short neck.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>We use the specific epithet " Phreatodrobia bulla " from the latin for “bubble”, referring to the rounded appearance of each whorl, particularly the rounded spire. We propose the common name “Brown’s cave snail" in honor of Mr. Tim Brown, a Bell County native and former Commissioner who has worked extensively to promote conservation of archaeological and groundwater resources in the region.</p><p>Ecology.</p><p>This new species is part of a diverse aquifer community. Relative abundance varies across the range of the species. At Creek Springs (part of the Robertson Springs Complex), as many as 200 snails can be captured over a couple of days of drift net collection, whereas at PC Springs, similar sampling effort yields only one or a few specimens. Phreatodrobia bulla sp. nov. is often collected with other phreatic snails: P. nugax, P. micra (Pilsbry &amp; Ferriss, 1906), and Phreatoceras taylori (Diaz and Warren 2018). Depending on site, P. bulla sp. nov. may also occur with several crustaceans Lirceolus sp., Stygobromus bakeri Gibson et al. 2021, Parabogidiella americana Holsinger, 1980, and undescribed Bathynellacea and Microcerberidae . They also occur with the federally threatened Salado salamander ( E. chisholmensis Chippindale, Price, Wiens &amp; Hillis, 2000) and Jollyville salamander ( E. tonkawae Chippindale, Price, Wiens &amp; Hillis, 2000).</p><p>Habitat.</p><p>All known localities for Phreatodrobia bulla sp. nov. are springs or hyporheic samples taken near springs discharging from the northern segment of the karstic Edwards Aquifer (north of the Colorado River). The northern segment lies adjacent to, but is disconnected from, the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer, with the Colorado River a topographic low that forms the boundary between the two segments. Faults, erosion, and other geologic and geomorphic factors in the northern segment have resulted in groundwater basins that are relatively smaller and more dissected than in the Barton Springs and San Antonio segments to the south (Jones 2003). More and smaller springs in the region, combined with relatively intensive sampling at many of those springs, are likely factors contributing to the higher number of known occurrences for this species, and it is likely that additional sampling in Bell, Williamson, and northern Travis Counties will result in more localities, particularly in the 45km gap between PC Spring (the southernmost location) and Kings Garden Spring. In particular, very little hyporheic sampling has been performed along streams and rivers in the region and this has been a productive method for sampling groundwater snails in other parts of Texas. Nevertheless, for the same reasons discussed for V. lillianae gen. et. sp. nov., it is unlikely that additional work will substantially expand the known range of P. bulla sp. nov.</p><p>Currently, P. bulla sp. nov., is known from 12 sites across a range of approximately 680 km2. Occurrence at multiples sites provides some security against catastrophic events (redundancy, sensu Shaffer and Stein 2000). Nevertheless, Bell and Williamson Counties are among the fastest growing counties in Texas, resulting in substantial pressure on groundwater resources. Eleven of the 12 locations occur within the Clearwater Underground Conservation District, which is tasked with developing and implementing a groundwater management plan for the Edwards and Trinity aquifers in Bell County (Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District 2020). The desired future condition adopted by the conservation district, which provides a basis for some permitting and regulation of groundwater extraction, is preservation of a minimum acceptable springflow of 1.66 cfs at the Salado Springs complex (which includes Anderson and Creek springs) during hydraulic conditions equal to the 1950s drought of record. That is approximately 10% of average flows during the 1980s (Brune 1995). Currently, several spring orifices in the region go dry during drought periods (Diaz et al. 2015), illustrating that groundwater availability is the central conservation concern for P. bulla sp. nov. The sites where this species has been encountered are restricted to springs and spring-run hyporheic habitats, with sampling of wells or caverns in Bell and Williamson counties needed to determine its’ full extent. Without quantifying the severity and scope of threats, P. bulla sp. nov. is ranked as imperiled (G2S2) using NatureServe methodology.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks.</p><p>Intraspecific and interspecific sequence divergence averaged 2.45% and 10.73%, respectively, in our dataset of Texas phreatic snails. Phreatodrobia bulla has an average sequence divergence of 10.34% with the other members of Phreatodrobia and Phreatoceras, and 6% divergence with its sister Phreatoceras taylori . Interspecific variability in COI has been examined in several groups of subterranean hydrobioid gastropods inhabiting karstic environments. In Belgrandiella A. J. Wagner, 1928 “species” ( Hydrobiidae) COI divergence ranged from 5.2-9.9% ( Jaszczyńska et al. 2022). An analysis of Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 ( Bythinellidae Locard, 1893) from a karstic region of France, which included epigean and cave species, found that maximum species-level divergence was 1.5% (Bichain et al. 2008). In Kerkia Radoman, 1978 (West Balkans), a group of snails that resembles Phreatodrobia in habitat and morphology, interspecific genetic divergence ranged from 4.2%-14.7% (Hofman et al. 2022) and similar values were found in Balkanica Georgiev, 2011 and related lineages ( Hydrobiidae, 7.8%-11.8%) in Bulgaria (Osikowski et al. 2017). Thus, gene flow seems to vary by group and may be relatively low within some taxa or high, possibly facilitated by movement through routes such as the hyporheic or phreatic rhizosphere (Haase et al. 2021). While there is not a molecular ruler denoting species-level distinction among subterranean species, Phreatodrobia bulla has sequence divergence comparable to other species of Phreatodrobia and greater than average species level divergence relative to most subterranean gastropods.</p><p>Lacking circumscription, Phreatodrobia bulla has been previously identified in recent literature (Alvear et al. 2020a; Gibson et al. 2021b) as P. conica or P. cf imitata as it resembles these species in some aspects of shell morphology, the basis for those identifications. When we consider internal anatomy or DNA, these species are diagnosably different from P. bulla . The shell of Phreatodrobia conica is described (Hershler and Longley 1986b) as having a simple aperture and a varix (ridge behind the aperture marking previous aperture position) near the end of the body whorl. It also has a distinctive teleoconch sculpture with numerous ridges. Its internal anatomy is distinguished by the lack of a ctenidium and a square-shaped central radular tooth. Phreatodrobia bulla in contrast has a flared and reflected aperture in adults with no sign of a varix in any material examined. The teleoconch sculpture is smooth without ridges and with a few collabral growth lines near the aperture, however, these are not elevated as described in P. conica . Finally, P. bulla has a robust ctenidium and the usual V-shaped central radular tooth both in contrast to what is described for P. conica. Access to the type locality of P. conica has not been possible during this study, preventing collection of tissues for DNA data collection. Even in the absence of DNA data, however, the anatomical distinctions between these species are sufficient to describe P. bulla as distinct from P. conica .</p><p>Phreatodrobia imitata and P. bulla share the same general shell shape and highly flared aperture (Fig. 9). However, the shells are readily distinguished. Phreatodrobia imitata has a translucent or clear shell which is heavily sculptured shell with collabral costae (ribs) and spiral lines (running opposite the ribs) while the teleoconch of P. bulla is unsculptured. Even though these sculptural features appear to consistently distinguish P. imitata and P. bulla, sculptural characters alone are insufficient to distinguish these species as ribs are polymorphic among Phreatodrobia and other freshwater snails. There are more pronounced differences found in the radula and DNA. The central radular tooth of P. imitata has a very narrow central cusp, 6-7 cusps on either side, and it lacks a basal cusp. The central radular tooth of P. bulla has a wider central cusp, ~ 5 cusps on either side, and it possesses a distinct basal cusp. We obtained P. imitata individuals for DNA analysis from Aldridge Well near the type locality ( Verstræten Well), and both COI and LSU phylogenies have strong support for placement of P. imitata as the sister lineage to other species of Phreatodrobia, not part of the P. bulla clade.</p><p>Previous classification efforts have not determined the placement of Phreatodrobia and Phreatoceras within a subfamily of Cochliopidae (Hershler and Thompson 1992; Liu et al. 2001). They are both found in the Edwards and Edwards-Trinity Aquifers and share features such as a minute, colorless, translucent shell and pitted protoconch microsculpture (Hershler and Longley 1986b; Hershler and Longley 1986a). Phreatoceras is diagnosed primarily by its unique, uncoiled, horn-like shell (see Fig. 3), and some features that are shared with various Phreatodrobia species such as a smooth teleoconch, loss of ctenidium, long central cusp of the central radular tooth. In the COI phylogeny, P. bulla is found sister to Phreatoceras taylori from the same springs in Bell County, Texas, but with weak support, and both are embedded within a clade of Phreatodrobia species. When nine anatomical characteristics of the two genera are compared (Table 1), P. bulla shares one distinctive characteristic with Phreatoceras, four characteristics with both genera, and five characteristics with Phreatodrobia . As this proposed new species shares more morphological characteristics with Phreatodrobia, is found by the DNA data within a clade of Phreatodrobia and does not have the distinctive trumpet shaped shell of Phreatoceras, we place it in Phreatodrobia .</p><p>We propose two potential explanations for the sister relationship of P. bulla and Phreatoceras taylori . In this study, we have not sampled the type locality of Phreatoceras, so it is possible that snails with a trumpet-shaped shell that we sampled in Bell County are not Phreatoceras taylori sensu stricto, described from Real County, Texas, ~250 km distant. Alternatively, Phreatoceras may be better considered a morphologically divergent member of Phreatodrobia rather than a separate genus. We have observed other species of Phreatodrobia, such as P. nugax, with a loosely coiled or partially uncoiled shell in some individuals, lending some observational support to this possibility. Examination and sequencing of Phreatoceras taylori from the type locality, is needed to resolve its relationship to Phreatodrobia .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E5EA46B08D12544EA51C425020CF99E0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Perez, Kathryn E.;Guerrero, Yamileth;Castaneda, Roel;Diaz, Peter H.;Gibson, Randy;Schwartz, Benjamin;Hutchins, Benjamin T.	Perez, Kathryn E., Guerrero, Yamileth, Castaneda, Roel, Diaz, Peter H., Gibson, Randy, Schwartz, Benjamin, Hutchins, Benjamin T. (2023): Two new phreatic snails (Mollusca, Caenogastropoda, Cochliopidae) from the Edwards and Edwards-Trinity aquifers, Texas. Subterranean Biology 47: 1-27, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.47.113186, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.47.113186
53BB60B2AE8E58A3917D877E55B50BE3.text	53BB60B2AE8E58A3917D877E55B50BE3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vitropyrgus lillianae Perez & Guerrero 2023	<div><p>Vitropyrgus lillianae Perez &amp; Guerrero, 2023 sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 5, 6</p><p>Stygopyrgus bartonensis, Hutchins 2018, suppl. material 1: table S1.</p><p>Stygopyrgus bartonensis, Hutchins et al. 2021, suppl. material 1: table S2.</p><p>Type locality.</p><p>USA, Texas. Comal County, New Braunfels, Comal Spring Upwelling #7, (29.7135, -98.1370).</p><p>Material examined.</p><p><a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-98.137&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=29.7135" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -98.137/lat 29.7135)">All</a> sites are in Texas, USA. Holotype - Comal County, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-98.137&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=29.7135" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -98.137/lat 29.7135)">Landa Park</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-98.137&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=29.7135" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -98.137/lat 29.7135)">New Braunfels</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-98.137&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=29.7135" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -98.137/lat 29.7135)">Comal Spring Upwelling</a> #7, (29.7135, -98.1370), drift net, collected by Randy Gibson, 2 May 2019 (ANSP 494654). Paratypes - Comal County, Landa Park, New Braunfels, Comal Spring Upwelling #7, (29.7135, -98.1370), drift net, collected by Randy Gibson, 1-5 June 2018 (ANSP 494656) .</p><p>Additional material examined.</p><p>- Kerr County, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-99.3427&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.167" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -99.3427/lat 30.167)">Fessenden Spring</a>, near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-99.3427&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=30.167" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -99.3427/lat 30.167)">Heart</a> of the Hills Fisheries Science Center (30.1670, -99.3427), drift net, collected by K. E Perez, D. Deshommes, N. Loveland, 4-6 November 2020 (ABC 005622) .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Minute shell with glassy appearance, with distinctive spiral and collabral sculpture on teleoconch that extends to sutures. Vitropyrgus lillianae differs from similar species in the region by shell shape, sculpture, or shell color. Stygopyrgus bartonensis has a taller, more columnar, and less heavily sculptured shell. The shell of S. bartonensis also has a pale brown tint in fresh shells that is not present in V. lillianae . The animals most easily confused with V. lillianae are very juvenile individuals of Pyrgophorus spinosus (Call &amp; Pilsbry, 1886). While their sculpture can appear quite similar, juvenile P. spinosus are much larger, have a white base color and the aperture forms an oval, completely appressed to the body whorl. Pyrgulopsis spinosus shells have a more steeply tapering spire than V. lillianae . Dissection and comparison of penial anatomy will readily distinguish V. lillianae due to its simple structure with no papillae or apocrine glands.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Shell very small, clear, glassy, heavily sculptured, ovate-conic with rounded whorl outlines (Fig. 5A-D). Average shell measurements for adults (n = 20): shell height = 0.737 mm (SD = 0.25), shell width = 0.470 mm (SD = 0.17), aperture height = 0.333 mm (SD = 0.11), aperture width = 0.268 mm (SD = 0.09), number of whorls = 4.5 (SD = 0.20).</p><p>First whorl of protoconch slightly elevated, separated from subsequent whorls (Fig. 5E, F). Protoconch surface heavily sculptured by wrinkles that form irregularly shaped shallow depressions or pits. Teleoconch sculpture includes finely spaced collabral ribs dissected by spiral lines (Fig. 5F, G). Ribs slightly more elevated, spaced 20-23 µm apart. Aperture ovate, slightly pulled away from body whorl, only lightly touching body whorl at parietal corner. Lip reflected on basal and umbilical portions in larger individuals. Outer lip straight, simple, slightly tilted forward (prosocline). Umbilicus open. Operculum clear, extremely thin, pliable, fragile (Fig. 5H). Shape elongate ellipsoidal, nucleus submarginal, spiral weakly convex. Growth lines not distinct or frilled.</p><p>Unpigmented body visible through shell. Snout nontapered, about as long as wide, with strong distal lobation. Foot short, anterior portion rounded, anterior edge indented, without lateral wings. Cephalic tentacles tapered, rounded, unpigmented, with no visible cilia, about 5 times as long as wide. Mantle tissue unpigmented. No visible eyes and no visible pigment at base of eyestalks. No ctenidium observed, osphradium rounded.</p><p>Intestine uncoiled, mostly filled with rounded fecal pellets, rectum exiting in pallial cavity, near mantle edge on right side of head. Esophagus entering stomach below, smaller posterior chamber with large digestive gland aperture and larger anterior chamber. Stomach speckled with dark flecks of pigment. Caecum not observed.</p><p>Penis large relative to body size tapering, attached well behind right eye, with an expanded, muscular base, narrow body segment, tapering to a distal tip (Figs 5I, J). Penis base with moderate folding along inner curvature. Distal portion tapered, inner and outer curves with aglandular curving lobes nearly opposite each other, giving a blunt, asymmetrical “arrowhead” shape to distal portion of penis. Neither apocrine glands or papillae present on examined individuals. Cilia not observed on distal penis.</p><p>Central radular tooth with indented dorsal edge (Fig. 6A); lateral cusps 4 on each side; central cusp ~1/3 longer than adjacent cusps, pointed but tapering at the end and at the base, wider in the middle, singular basal cusps pointed, with small buttress, paddle shaped, not needle-like, basal process triangular in shape; deep basal socket. Lateral tooth rectangular, narrowing slightly upon reaching the outer wing; outer wing tapering; central cusp longer than lateral cusps, 5-6 cusps outer and 5 cusps inner direction, decreasing in size distally. Inner marginal teeth with broad outer wing with basal notch, 17-19 cusps, mostly similar in length except two outermost cusps shorter, triangular, wide at base. Outer marginal teeth broad and curved at end, with 14-16 cusps. Cusps along inner edge longer; tooth face tapering to outer wing which then broadens again at base (Fig. 6B, C).</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>We use the generic name " Vitropyrgus " reflecting the glassy appearance of the shell of this phreatic snail compared to related groups. The specific epithet " Vitropyrgus lillianae " is in honor of Dr. Lillian E. Perez, the first author’s mother. We propose the common name "glass cavesnail".</p><p>Ecology.</p><p>This new snail species is found among other phreatic snail fauna in Comal Springs including: Phreatodrobia nugax (Pilsbry &amp; Ferriss, 1906), Phreatodrobia plana Hershler &amp; Longley, 1986, Phreatodrobia spica K. E. Perez &amp; Alvear, 2020, and Phreatodrobia rotunda Hershler &amp; Longley, 1986. Other members of this unique subterranean fauna include the federally endangered amphipod Stygobromus pecki (Holsinger, 1967), the federally endangered dryopid beetle Stygoparnus comalensis Barr &amp; Spangler, 1992, an undescribed stygobiontic salamander, and many other invertebrates (Hutchins et al. 2021). Federally endangered epigean fauna at Comal Springs include the riffle beetle, Heterelmis comalensis Bosse, Tuff, &amp; Brown, 1988, fountain darter, Etheostoma fonticola (Jordan &amp; Gilbert, 1886), and Comal Springs salamander, Eurycea neotenes Bishop &amp; Wright, 1937.</p><p>Habitat.</p><p>This species is known from two localities in the karstic Edwards and Edwards-Trinity Aquifers, separated by ~125 km. Comal Springs is the largest spring in Texas (mean annual discharge = 8.4 m3/s, (USGS 2023)) and discharges water from the deep confined portion of the regional San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The spring is a complex of openings discharging on and along a normal fault that divides the deep confined and recharge zones of the Edwards Aquifer, and the springs integrate a mix of species found in one or both aquifer zones.</p><p>Fessenden Spring on Johnson Creek is a smaller spring that is part of the large regional Edwards-Trinity Aquifer system. Fessenden Spring discharges from the base of the Edwards Limestone in the central Texas Hill Country and is one of many Edwards-Trinity springs that support baseflows in the headwater reaches of the Guadalupe River. Across much of the southeastern portion of this aquifer, springs discharge into streams and rivers in the contributing zone for the Edwards Aquifer. The Edwards-Trinity system is hydrologically connected to the Edwards Aquifer along the Balcones Fault zone through both groundwater and surface-water linkages. The Guadalupe River is the only river in the contributing zone to not consistently lose much or all its flow to the Edwards Aquifer as it crosses the aquifer recharge zone (Ockerman and Slattery 2008; Wehmeyer et al. 2013). Instead, it consistently gains discharge via Comal Spring, Hueco Spring, and several other springs discharging from both the Edwards and Edwards-Trinity aquifers.</p><p>In the boundary zone between the two aquifer systems, movement of organisms across blurry hydrologic boundaries between the aquifers is possible. Additionally, there is increasing evidence that the hyporheic zone along river corridors can provide important habitat and connectivity for a variety of Texas groundwater taxa, including snails (Hutchins et al. 2020; Sparks 2023). Because the Edwards Limestone is continuously exposed across the upper and middle Guadalupe River watershed between Fessenden and Comal Springs, it is likely that Vitropyrgus lillianae gen. et sp. nov. is more widespread than the localities reported here. More occurrences will likely be discovered once the species is characterized, and additional samples are collected across this watershed. However, given the prevalence of restricted range size in most (though not all) Texas groundwater snails (Alvear et al. 2020a), it is unlikely that the range for Vitropyrgus lillianae gen. et sp. nov. will be expanded considerably. With only two populations currently known, the species is classified as critically imperiled (G1S1) using NatureServe methodology and considering distribution data only.</p><p>Taxonomic remarks.</p><p>The species superficially resembles Stygopyrgus bartonensis in overall shell form and sculpture and was initially identified as that species (e.g. Hutchins 2018, suppl. material 1: table S1, identification by R. Hershler, and Hutchins et al. 2021, suppl. material 1: table S2). Here we examine the relationship with both COI and LSU data of V. lillianae to several populations of S. bartonensis, including the type locality. In both analyses, while it is not certain which members of the Cochliopidae V. lillianae are closely related to, this species is not supported as closely related to S. bartonensis.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/53BB60B2AE8E58A3917D877E55B50BE3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Perez, Kathryn E.;Guerrero, Yamileth;Castaneda, Roel;Diaz, Peter H.;Gibson, Randy;Schwartz, Benjamin;Hutchins, Benjamin T.	Perez, Kathryn E., Guerrero, Yamileth, Castaneda, Roel, Diaz, Peter H., Gibson, Randy, Schwartz, Benjamin, Hutchins, Benjamin T. (2023): Two new phreatic snails (Mollusca, Caenogastropoda, Cochliopidae) from the Edwards and Edwards-Trinity aquifers, Texas. Subterranean Biology 47: 1-27, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.47.113186, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.47.113186
95B5F3629D875A5EB4B2E257C487A4BA.text	95B5F3629D875A5EB4B2E257C487A4BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vitropyrgus Perez & Guerrero 2023	<div><p>Genus Vitropyrgus Perez &amp; Guerrero, 2023 gen. nov.</p><p>Figs 5, 6</p><p>Type species.</p><p>Vitropyrgus lillianae gen. et sp. nov.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Minute shell with spiral and collabral sculpture on teleoconch that extends to sutures. Embryonic whorl distinctively sculptured with wrinkles giving a malleated appearance. Aperture ovate to round, with slightly reflected lip near umbilicus. Umbilicus open. Animal eyeless and unpigmented. Penis attached behind right eye position, simple in glandular structure. The single known species of Vitropyrgus is a quarter of the size of related epigean taxa and is adapted to a subterranean environment (e.g., lacking pigmentation, eyes, and ctenidia). Simple penial morphology lacking the papillae or apocrine glands that define other members of Cochliopidae . Finally, the shell has a distinctive clear and glassy appearance, lacking the tan color of Tryonia or Stygopyrgus Hershler &amp; Longley, 1986 or the usual translucency of Phreatodrobia .</p><p>Taxonomic remarks.</p><p>The most recent review of Cochliopidae (Hershler and Thompson 1992) divided the family into three subfamilies, Cochliopinae Tryon, 1966, Littoridininae Thiele, 1928, and Semisalsinae Giusti &amp; Pezzoli, 1980 largely distinguished by glandular features of the male reproductive anatomy, including “Tribe” Heleobia Thompson, 1968 (Hershler and Thompson 1992; Liu et al. 2001) diagnosed by apocrine penial glands. Cochliopinae (e.g. Cochliopina W. Stimpson, 1865) is diagnosed by a simple, non-glandular penis with a long filament distinct from the wrinkled or folded base and Littoridininae (including Stygopyrgus, Pyrgophorus, Mexipyrgus, and Tryonia) is characterized by a long sperm duct and often with numerous glandular papillae. A subsequent molecular phylogenetic analysis broadly supported these groupings (Liu et al. 2001).</p><p>We do not attempt to place this genus among the subfamilies of Cochliopidae . The COI phylogeny has limited resolution at this level, we have limited sampling in LSU for placement among subfamilies. The COI tree places Vitropyrgus close (with no support) to a clade that included Heleobia ( Semisalsinae) and Onobops ( Littoridinae). Members of Semisalsinae are diagnosed by penial papillae or apocrine glands (Liu et al. 2001), which Vitropyrgus lacks. Onobops is one of several cochliopid genera that have a simple penis with no papillae or apocrine glands, resembling Vitropyrgus . Onobops are epigean, brackish water species from North America. The subfamily placement of this genus is best defined as uncertain along with many other genera in Cochliopidae .</p><p>Vitropyrgus is proposed as a new genus with the following rationale. First, it was found by COI and LSU phylogenies sister to epigean taxa. In the COI phylogeny, Vitropyrgus is most closely related to members of the Heleobia and Onobops . Divergence in COI between Vitropyrgus and other members of that clade averaged 16.0% with a range from 15.5-16.6. Intergeneric comparisons in our dataset averaged 16.54% with a range from 5.19-25.37. This places the level of divergence between Vitropyrgus and its closest known relatives within the range of intergeneric divergence and just under the average for the Texas genera. In other groups of subterranean hydrobioids the range of 14.5-16.7% has been used to justify genus level distinction (Delicado et al. 2019; Delicado and Gürlek 2021).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/95B5F3629D875A5EB4B2E257C487A4BA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Perez, Kathryn E.;Guerrero, Yamileth;Castaneda, Roel;Diaz, Peter H.;Gibson, Randy;Schwartz, Benjamin;Hutchins, Benjamin T.	Perez, Kathryn E., Guerrero, Yamileth, Castaneda, Roel, Diaz, Peter H., Gibson, Randy, Schwartz, Benjamin, Hutchins, Benjamin T. (2023): Two new phreatic snails (Mollusca, Caenogastropoda, Cochliopidae) from the Edwards and Edwards-Trinity aquifers, Texas. Subterranean Biology 47: 1-27, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.47.113186, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.47.113186
