Neocancilla, CERNOHORSKY, 1966

Fedosov, Alexander, Puillandre, Nicolas, Herrmann, Manfred, Kantor, Yuri, Oliverio, Marco, Dgebuadze, Polina, Modica, Maria Vittoria & Bouchet, Philippe, 2018, The collapse of Mitra: molecular systematics and morphology of the Mitridae (Gastropoda: Neogastropoda), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 183, pp. 253-337 : 312-313

GENUS NEOCANCILLA CERNOHORSKY, 1966

( FIGS 28G–I, 30)

Type species: Voluta papilio Link, 1807 ; OD.

Diagnosis: Shell small to medium sized (10–65 mm), fusiform, with short and stout siphonal canal. Protoconch pointed, narrowly conical, of about three slightly convex glossy whorls. Suture deeply impressed to canaliculate. Spire orthoconoid, teleoconch whorls evenly convex. Sculpture of wide spiral cords, low or slightly elevated adapically, or bearing rows of fine beads. Spiral cords separated by narrow deep groves and intersected by axial riblets of similar strength, forming regular cancellate sculpture. Siphonal canal short and robust, gradually merging to shell base, although separated from it by narrow depression at about the level of the second columellar fold. Siphonal notch deep. Aperture elongate; outer aperture lip evenly convex along most of its length. Inner aperture lip with four strong columellar folds, adapicalmost strongest. Shell cream, pale or orange, usually with contrasting darker bands. Radula with narrow rachidian bearing six blunt, very robust cusps; paired central cusps greatly exceeding the others ( Fig. 28G–I). Lateral teeth with four or five very short and blunt cusps situated proximally, distal portions of teeth without cusp.

Distribution: Indo-Pacific, intertidal and upper subtidal depths, mostly on sand.

Species included: Neocancilla antoniae (H. Adams, 1870) 3, N. arenacea (Dunker, 1852) 3, N. clathrus (Gmelin, 1791) 2, N. hartorum Poppe, Salisbury & Tagaro , 20153, N. hemmenae (Salisbury & Heinicke, 1993) 3, N. kayae Cernohorsky , 19783, N. maculosa (Gmelin, 1791) 1, N. madagascariensis Herrmann , 20173, N. papilio (Link, 1807) 1, N. rufescens (A. Adams, 1853) 1, N. takiisaoi (Kuroda, 1959) 2, N. waikikiensis (Pilsbry, 1921) 2.

Remarks: The genus Neocancilla is one of the few lineages the composition of which is left rather unchanged after our phylogenetic analysis. The group is well delineated, thanks to the characteristic shell and conservative radular morphology. The radula of the West African ‘ Neocancilla ’ hebes depicted by Cernohorsky (1991) rather resembles the radula of Strigatellinae and led Cernohorsky to question the relation of that species to the Indo-Pacific Neocancilla . Here, we remove this species from Neocancilla and provisionally place it in Domiporta .

Species of Domiporta are closest to Neocancilla primarily because of similar shell proportions and sculpture pattern. Species of Neocancilla , however, can be distinguished by the shell base and siphonal canal, which form a continuous, usually slightly convex, outline with no concave waist. Besides, there are consistent differences between the two genera in radular morphology: in Neocancilla , the radula has few short, blunt and robust cusps on the rachidian and laterals, while in Domiporta the rachidian and laterals bear multiple pointed cusps that are not differentiated in size or shape. The Scabricola – Swainsonia grade is closely related to Neocancilla , and the species of these three genera are conchologically similar. However, shells of Scabricola and Swainsonia can be differentiated by a notably weaker sculpture, with no or very weak axial elements; besides, most species of Scabricola are wider, with a higher last adult whorl compared to Neocancilla .

SUBFAMILY CYLINDROMITRINAE COSSMANN, 1899

( FIGS 31–33)