Cochlostoma (T.) kleciaki (Braun, 1887)

Figs 105 (orange dots), 114–116

Pomatias kleciaki Braun, 1887: 110–111.

Lectotype

CROATIA • ♂; “ Pom. kleciaki Bttg. Lesina Klečiak 80”; SMF160836.

Other specimens

CROATIA • 2- Makarska; 43.3000° N, 17.0300° E; A.J. Wagner leg.; MIZPASW 7082 • 3- Županje Selo; 42.9637° N, 17.3084° E; 1985; Kiss and L. Pintér leg.; HNHM105302.

Type locality

CROATIA • “Lesina insula” (Hvar island, Split-Dalmatia).

Description

SHELL. (based on the male lectotype). Teleoconch spotless. Rather strong ribs becoming less strong and closely spaced toward aperture. Very strong lip with indented columellar lobe presumably (lectotype only seen in frontal and lateral view) covering umbilicus.

MEASUREMENTS. ♀ MIZPASW7082: whorls=8.1, H = 8.9 mm, H/W=2.6, roundness= 0.13, ribs inclin.=63°, ribs per mm 1 st whorl = 6, ribs per mm 4 th whorl = 10. 3 ♀♀ Županje Selo: whorls 7.2– 7.7, H = 6.1–6.4 mm, H/W= 2.44–2.63, roundness =0.15–0.17, ribs inclin.=57–62, ribs per mm 1 st whorl =8–12, ribs per mm 4 th whorl= 10–17.

FEMALE GENITAL ORGANS. Poorly preserved specimens from Županje Selo were dissected. Slightly posterior pedunculus of bursa copulatrix, club-shaped, elongated, tortuous seminal receptacle and short loops clustered close to apex of seminal receptacle, junction of uterus gland far from connection between distal oviduct and pedunculus of bursa copulatrix.

Remarks

The lectotype is a male specimen. The female specimen in Wagner’s collection (Fig. 115) is from Makarska, a Croatian city on the coast opposite Hvar Island. The female genital morphology of the specimens from Županje Selo, Pelješac peninsula, south of Hvar Island (Croatia), here assumed as representative of the species, show clade B features. The similarity with C. (T.) nanum and C. (T.) stossichi was also noticed by Braun who remarked it in the original description (1887: 110–111: “Die Form steht den beiden croatischen Arten P. nanus West, von Udbina bei Gospic und P. stossichi Cless. vom Mte. Risniak in Südcroatien sehr nahe, dürfte aber vorläufig schon wegen des weitentlegenen Fundortes nicht ohne weiteres mit einer derselben identificiert werden.” To be noted that the localities cited by Braun are not correct).