820
Journal of Paleontology 92(5):804–837
Etymology.—Named for Dr. Wendell P. Woodring (1891– 1983) in honor of his important contributions to Cenozoic tro- pical American paleontology (see Moore, 1992).
Materials.—In addition to type specimens listed above, the following specimens were studied: NHMUK PI G 83962 (lec-
totype of Conus consobrinus); USNM 645745 (one specimen, figured by Woodring, 1970; see Fig. 8.10); USNM645746 (one specimen, figured by Woodring, 1970; see Fig. 8.11, 8.12); and CASG 66695.09 (one specimen from the Gatun Formation of Panama figured by Pitt and Pitt, 1993, pl. 4, fig. 1).
Remarks.—Conus consobrinus Sowerby I, 1850 was described from the Neogene of the Dominican Republic (the most recent formal treatment of this material was by Pflug, 1961). Occur- rences of C. consobrinus have been widely reported from throughout tropical America (see Woodring, 1970). Based on ANSP 1682, Brown and Pilsbry (1911) were the first to report C. consobrinus from the Gatun Formation of Panama, but Woodring (1970) considered this specimen to instead represent C. tortuosostriatus Toula, 1911 and included it in his circum- scription of that species; ANSP 1682 was viewed and Woodr- ing’s assignment is accepted here (see below). Woodring (1970) nevertheless recognized C. consobrinus consobrinus as occur- ring in the Gatun Formation on the basis of other material: “two specimens from the lower part, two from the middle part, and one from the upper part” (Woodring, 1970, p. 353). Following Woodring (1970), Pitt and Pitt (1993) applied the name C. consobrinus consobrinus to a specimen (CASG 66695.09) that shows a fluorescing coloration pattern under UV light (Pitt and Pitt, 1993, pl. 4, fig. 1). Thus, the reported occurrence of C. consobrinus in the Gatun Formation is based on a total of six specimens. While some aspects of shell form (perhaps most notably the
presence of large tubercles on most spire whorls and commonly beaded spiral threads on the last whorl) support an association between specimens of C. consobrinus from the Dominican Republic and somewhat similar, older material from the Gatun Formation, coloration patterns revealed under UV light and comparison of shell shape parameters instead better support the hypothesis that the Gatun material represents a species—Conus woodringi n. sp.—distinct from younger C. consobrinus from the early Pliocene of the Dominican Republic. While the coloration pattern of C. consobrinus from its type region remains unpublished, it differs markedly from that of the new species (Hendricks, 2017, personal observation of speci- mens in the collections of the PRI from Tulane University locality TU 1219, lower Pliocene Gurabo Formation of the Dominican Republic). Most notably, the coloration pattern of C. consobrinus seems to lack the distinctive, zig-zagging axial streaks that are present onmost of the specimens of C. woodringi n. sp. from UF locality YN020. The shell morphology of C. consobrinus from the Dominican Republic also differs substantially from the specimens assigned here to C. woodringi n. sp. In particular,measurements collected from13 specimens of C. consobrinus in lot PRI 65989 fromTUlocality 1219 showthat shells of C. consobrinus are narrower (RD 0.60–0.64, x=0:62) and have higher spires (RSH 0.22–0.28, x=0:25) than shells of C. woodringi n. sp. from the Gatun Formation (compare with
values above, which do not overlap with these simple metrics). It is therefore concluded that C. consobrinus does not occur in the Gatun Formation of Panama and that reports of this species by Woodring (1970) and Pitt and Pitt (1993) should instead be referred to C. woodringi n. sp. Woodring (1970) considered Conus lavillei Cossmann,
1913 to be a junior synonym of C. consobrinus. The type specimen figured by Cossmann (1913) has a much narrower shell and higher spire than specimens assigned here to C. woodringi n. sp., and it is therefore considered to be a different species. Conus lavillei is much more similar in shell form to Conus tortuosostriatus Toula, 1911, a species known from the Gatun Formation (Woodring, 1970), but not found at UF locality YN020. A specimen (NHMW 2010/0038/0214) from the lower
PlioceneAraya Formation ofCubagua Island,Venezuela thatwas assigned by Landau and Silva (2010) to Conus spurius instead appears to be consistent in several respects with Conus woodringi n. sp. In particular, this specimen (see Landau and da Silva, 2010, pl. 21, fig. 6a–c) exhibits a similar overall shell shape, large tubercles on its early postnuclear whorls, and a visible coloration pattern that shows some evidence of the zig-zagging axial streaks of C. woodringi n. sp. Importantly, specimens of C. spurius never have large tubercles on early postnuclear whorls, negating the possibility that NHMW 2010/0038/0214 belongs to that species. The specimen from the Araya Formation, however, is somewhat younger (early Pliocene) than the new species from the Gatun Formation (late Miocene). Because of this, the assignment of NHMW2010/0038/0214 to Conus woodringi n. sp. is considered tentative at the present time, pending study of additional material from the Araya Formation. The assignment of C. woodringi n. sp. to the subgenus
Stephanoconus is supported in large part by its overall shell shape, presence of large tubercles on most spire whorls, deep subsutural flexure, and especially its complex, two-element coloration pattern. Indeed, C. woodringi n. sp. is very similar in shell morphology to the extant eastern Pacific species Conus (Stephanoconus) archon Broderip, 1833, which has a known phylogenetic position (Puillandre et al., 2014, 2015). In addition to similarities shared with C. consobrinus, C. woodringi n. sp. is also somewhat similar to two additional Neogene tropical American species of Stephanoconus, both from the late Miocene and early Pliocene of the Dominican Republic: Conus sewalli Maury, 1917 and C. bellacoensis Hendricks, 2015. Notable differences, however, include the lack of pigmented zig-zagging axial streaks on C. sewalli and that shells of C. bellacoensis are narrower (mean RD 0.57) and have higher spires (mean RSH=0.28) (Hendricks, 2015) than specimens of C. woodringi. It is anticipated that future study of C. consobrinus will also support its assignment to the Stephanoconus clade.
Subgenus Dauciconus Cotton, 1945
Remarks.—Puillandre et al. (2015) assigned a total of 105 extant species to the subgenus Dauciconus Cotton, 1945, making it one of the most diverse subgenera of Conus. Some of these species may be synonymous (see Kohn, 2014), and only 17 have been subjected to molecular phylogenetic analysis (Puillandre
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207
