Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Cryptonatica affinis

Gastropoda - Naticidae

Nerita affinis was named by Gmelin (1791) [DISTRIBUTION: Pleistocene-Recent; Northern Atlantic.]. It is extant.

It was recombined as Natica affinis by Simonarson et al. (1998); it was recombined as Tectonatica affinis by Eiriksson et al. (2004); it was recombined as Cryptonatica affinis by Hendy et al. (2008).

Sister species lacking formal opinion data

View classification of included taxa

  • Natica clausa was named by Broderip and Sowerby (1829) [DISTRIBUTION: Holocene-Recent; Northern and Western Atlantic.]. It is extant.

    It was recombined as Natica (Cryptonatica) clausa by Richards (1962), Marincovich (1977), Marincovich (1983) and Marincovich (1988); it was recombined as Tectonatica clausa by Okutani (1964); it was recombined as Cryptonatica clausa by Majima (1989); it was synonymized subjectively with Cryptonatica affinis by Bouchet and Warén (1993).
Synonymy list
YearName and author
1791Nerita affinis Gmelin p. 3675
1829Natica clausa Broderip and Sowerby p. 372
1962Natica (Cryptonatica) clausa Richards
1964Tectonatica clausa Okutani pp. 395-396
1977Natica (Cryptonatica) clausa Marincovich p. 410
1983Natica (Cryptonatica) clausa Marincovich p. 113
1988Natica (Cryptonatica) clausa Marincovich p. 15
1989Cryptonatica clausa Majima p. 82
1998Natica affinis Simonarson et al.
2004Tectonatica affinis Eiriksson et al.
2008Cryptonatica affinis Hendy et al.

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

EubilateriaAx 1987
classGastropodaCuvier 1797
superorderHypsogastropoda(Ponder and Lindberg 1997)
infraorderLittorinimorphaGolikov and Starobogtov 1975
superfamilyNaticoidea(Forbes 1838)
familyNaticidaeGuilding 1834
subfamilyNaticinaeGuilding 1834
genusCryptonaticaDall 1892
speciesaffinis(Gmelin 1791)

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

No diagnoses are available