Figs 17A–G
Terebra duplicata Bronn — Dubois de Montpéreux 1831: 25, pl. 1, figs 41–42 [non Duplicaria duplicata (Linnaeus, 1758)].
Terebra duplicata Bronn — Pusch 1837: 187 [non Duplicaria duplicata (Linnaeus, 1758)].
* Terebra Volhynia d’Orb.—d’Orbigny 1852: 88 [pro Terebra duplicata Dubois de Montpéreux, 1831, non Linnaeus, 1758].
[Terebra] Volhyniana —d’Orbigny 1852: 165.
Terebra Basteroti Nyst — Hörnes 1852: 132, pl. 11, fig. 27 (only) [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra Volhynia d’O.— Bronn & Roemer 1854: 565
Terebra Basteroti Nyst — Hoernes & Auinger 1880: 111, pl. 12, figs 15–16 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra basteroti Nyst. — Boettger 1902: 18 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra Basterot Nyst — Friedberg 1911: 7 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra basteroti Nyst —Friedberg 1928: 563, pl. 36, fig. 31 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra Basteroti Nyst — Friedberg 1938: 158 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Myurella) basteroti Nyst — Csepreghy-Meznerics 1950: 63 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Myurella) basteroti Nyst — Csepreghy-Meznerics 1954: 57, pl. 7, figs 24, 32 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Myurella) basteroti Nyst — Strausz 1954: 36, pl. 2, fig. 37 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra basteroti Nyst — Moisescu 1955a: 173 pl. 15, fig. 6 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Strioterebrum) basteroti Nyst. — Korobkov 1955: plate captions, pl. 92, fig. 5 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
T [erebra]. (M [yurella].) basteroti Nyst — Sieber 1958: 162 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Strioterebrum) basteroti Nyst — Nicorici 1972: 69, pl. 18, figs 3–4 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Strioterebrum) basteroti Nyst — Atanacković 1963: 79, pl. 15, figs 4–4c [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra basteroti Nyst — Strausz 1966: 389, pl. 4, fig. 32 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Terebra (Myurella) basteroti (Nyst) — Csepreghy-Meznerics 1972: 34, pl. 18, figs 7, 14 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Strioterebrum (Strioterebrum) basteroti (Nyst) — Davoli 1977: 152, pl. 2, fig. 1 (only).
Terebra (Strioterebrum) basteroti Nyst, 1843 — Atanacković 1985: 182: pl. 41, figs 1–2 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Strioterebrum basteroti [sic] (Nyst, 1843)— Popa et al. 2014: 18, pl. 5, fig. 11 [non Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845)].
Type material. Holotype illustrated in Dubois de Montpéreux (1831: pl. 1, figs 41–42), Szuszkowce (Ukraine). The collection of Dubois de Montpéreux (1831) is lost.
Illustrated material. NHMW 1846/0037/0126, SL: 34.7 mm, MD: 6.5 mm, Mikulov (Czech Republic), illustrated in Hörnes (1852: pl. 11, fig. 27), Figs 17A 1 –A 2. NHMW 1867/0019/0062, SL: 28.4 mm, MD: 5.2 mm, CoŞteiu de Sus (Romania), illustrated in Hoernes & Auinger (1880: pl. 12, fig. 16), Figs 17B 1 –B 2. NHMW 1867/0019/0062, SL: 32.5 mm, MD: 5.8 mm, CoŞteiu de Sus (Romania), illustrated in Hoernes & Auinger (1880: pl. 12, fig. 15), Figs 17C 1 –C 2. NHMW 2023/0296/0004, SL: 37.5 mm, MD: 6.4 mm, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania), Figs 17D 1 –D 2. NHMW 2023/0296/0005, SL: 37.1 mm, MD: 7.2 mm, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania), Figs 17E 1 –E 2. NHMW 2023/0295/0006, SL: 32.8 mm, MD: 6.0 mm, Bad Vöslau (Austria), Figs 17F 1 –F 2. NHMW 2023/0299/0002, SL: 28.3 mm, MD: 5.7 mm, CoŞteiu de Sus (Romania), Figs 17G 1 –G 2.
Additional material. 12 spec., NHMW 1859 /0027/0017, Vienna /Pötzleinsdorf (Austria); 20 spec., NHMW 1863 /0015/0159, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania); 1 spec., NHMW 2013 /0078/0417, Baden (Austria).
Revised description. Medium sized, very slender cyrtoconoid shell of up to 16 teleoconch whorls; apical angle ~20–22°, later decreasing to ~10°. Protoconch unknown. Early teleoconch whorls conical, flat sided, with prominent, more or less orthocline axial ribs, separated by narrower interspaces. Subsutural band moderately developed, delimited by shallow groove. Abapically; distance between axial ribs widens; interspaces between ribs bearing relatively broad, flat spiral cords separated by narrow grooves; subsutural band strengthens, becomes convex, bearing widely spaced axial ribs; spiral groove delimiting subsutural band deepens, punctate between axials. Whorl profile weakly convex below subsutural band with periphery just below mid-whorl. Suture distinctly incised. Last whorl moderately high, ~30% of total height, slightly convex. Base convex, moderately constricted. Fasciole broad, moderately prominent, delimited adapically by weak carina. Aperture narrow. Columella moderately excavated in adapical half. No columellar fold. Columellar callus forming broad, thin rim, poorly delimited from base. Anal canal narrow, weakly incised. Outer lip thin. Siphonal canal moderately long, narrow, slightly twisted, moderately deeply notched at tip.
Discussion. See above for a separation from Strioterebrum basterotii (Nyst, 1845). Strioterebrum volhynianum is reminiscent of S. exbistriatum (Sacco, 1891a) with which it co-occurs at several Paratethyan localities. They are distinguished by the more prominent subsutural cord of S. volhynianum and the more delicate spiral sculpture of S. exbistriata.
Paleoenvironment. Found in shallow marine assemblages (e.g., Szob, Várpalota) and middle to outer neritic depositional settings (e.g., Baden, Bad-Vöslau).
Distribution in Central Paratethys. Badenian (Middle Miocene): Polish-Ukrainian Fore-Carpathian Basin: Zborów (Zboriv), Żukowce (Zhukivtsi) (Ukraine), Tarnoruda (Ukraine) (d’Orbigny 1852; Friedberg 1928); Vienna Basin: Baden, Bad-Vöslau, Baden-Sooss, Enzesfeld, Traiskirchen, Vienna /Pötzleinsdorf (Austria) (Hoernes & Auinger 1880); Eisenstadt-Sopron Basin: Forchtenau (Austria) (Hoernes &Auinger 1880); Pannonian Basin: Hidas, Szob, Várpalota (Hungary) (Csepreghy-Meznerics 1950; Strausz 1954); southern Pannonian Basin: Hrvaćani, Miljevići (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Atanacković 1985); Bükk Mountains: Bóta (Hungary) (Csepreghy-Meznerics 1972); Cserhát Mountains: Mátraverebély, Sámsonháza (Hungary) (Csepreghy-Meznerics 1954); Făget Basin: Bujtur, CoŞteiu de Sus, Lăpugiu de Sus (Romania) (Hoernes & Auinger 1880); Şimleu Basin: Tusa (Romania) (Nicorici 1972);
Proto-Mediterranean Sea. Tortonian (Late Miocene): Po Basin: Montegibbio (Italy) (Davoli 1977).
Genus Maculauger Fedosov, Malcolm, Terryn, Gorson, Modica, Holford & Puillandre, 2020
Type species. Terebra pseudopertusa Bratcher & Cernohorsky, 1985 [= Maculauger kokiy Pacaud & Lesport, 2020], original designation by Fedosov et al. (2020: 368). Present-day, Indian Ocean.
Original diagnosis. “ Small to medium-sized (<60 mm); typically, orange-brown with irregular maculations on subsutural band. Whorl outline flattened or gently convex. Subsutural band lightly ribbed or flattened, separated from lower portion of whorl by narrow groove or row of punctations. Axial and spiral sculpture of about equal strength, producing cancellate sculpture below subsutural band.” (Fedosov et al. 2020: 368).
Discussion. Maculauger is difficult to define by conchological features alone. Fedosov et al. (2020) emphasized that axial and spiral sculpture is of equal strength. This feature is seen in some specimens of Maculauger scarabellii (Coppi, 1876) (see Davoli 1977: pl. 2, figs 9, 10, 11) but does not occur in all specimens (see Davoli 1977; pl. 2, figs 7, 13, 14). Maculauger sophiae (Hoernes & Auinger, 1880) lacks spiral cords as well, like the living Maculauger castigatus (A. H. Cooke, 1885), which was included in the genus by Fedosov et al. (2020) based on molecular data. However, in their generic shell description of Maculauger they did not include the conchological characters seen in the ‘ castigata group’; i.e., well defined swollen subsutural band with coarse tubercles, sharply delimited by narrow groove, wide spaced ribs below, no spiral sculpture. In addition, UV light revealed a color pattern of blotches at the subsutural band of Maculauger sophiae (Caze et al. 2010), which is characteristic for some Maculauger species (Fedosov et al. 2020). Maculauger sophiae and M. scarabellii are strikingly similar to Maculauger castigatus from the present-day Red Sea in shape and sculpture suggesting a close relationship. However, we stress that inclusion of this ‘ castigata group’ in Maculauger is based solely on molecular data presented by Fedosov et al. (2020). The shells are so strikingly different that it might warrant further molecular confirmation. This is the first record of Maculauger from the European Neogene.