diff --git a/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFCAFFB3FC06FD0BFBC1FA87.xml b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFCAFFB3FC06FD0BFBC1FA87.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..92a158b5a75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFCAFFB3FC06FD0BFBC1FA87.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,542 @@
+
+
+
+Revision of northeast Pacific Paleogene cypraeoidean gastropods, including recognition of three new species: implications for paleobiogeographic distribution and faunal turnover
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Groves, Lindsey
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Squires, Richard L.
+
+text
+
+
+PaleoBios
+
+
+2023
+
+2023-08-10
+
+
+40
+
+
+10
+
+
+1
+52
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/p9401057774
+
+journal article
+10.5070/P9401057774
+0031-0298
+10913295
+11600574-2B0E-4C13-BC08-A3A5EF9EE562
+
+
+
+
+
+
+EOCYPRAEA NOVASUMMA
+(
+NELSON, 1925
+)
+
+
+
+
+FIGS. 8A–C
+
+
+
+
+
+Ovula novasumma
+Nelson, 1925
+
+. p. 398, chart opposite p. 402, 425; pl. 57, fig. 2.
+Keen and Bentson, 1944
+. p. 183. Zinsmeister and Paredes-Mejia, 1988. p. 12.
+
+
+
+Eocypraea
+(
+Eocypraea
+)
+novasumma
+(Nelson)
+
+.
+Schilder, 1932
+. p. 214 [as
+E.
+
+(
+E
+.)
+novasumma
+
+].
+Schilder, 1941
+. p. 102. Weaver, MS [1959]. p. 480; pl. 21, figs. 1, 2.
+Groves, 1992
+. p. 106.
+Groves, 1993
+. p. 11.
+Groves, 1997
+. p. 7. Groves, 2011. p. 46 (table 1).
+
+
+
+Cypraea novasuma
+
+[
+sic
+] (Nelson).
+Ingram, 1947a
+. p. 60, 98, pl. 3, fig. 9.
+Ingram, 1947b
+. p. 147.
+
+
+
+Eocypraea
+(
+Eocypraea
+)
+sabuloviridis
+(
+Whitfield, 1892
+)
+
+.
+Schilder and Schilder, 1971
+. pp. 66, 137. Not
+
+Eocypraea sabuloviridis
+(
+Whitfield, 1892
+)
+
+.
+
+
+
+Eocypraea novasumma
+(Nelson)
+
+.
+Zinsmeister, 1974
+. p. 129; pl. 13 [not pl. 8 as in text], figs. 8, 9;
+Zinsmeister, 1983
+. pp. 64, 69, pl. 3, figs. 1, 2.
+Groves and Squires, 2021
+. p. 227 (as
+
+Cypraea
+
+), 232.
+Fehse, 2021
+. p. 42.
+
+
+
+Eocypraea novasumma
+(Nelson)
+
+.
+Paredes-Mejia, 1989
+. p. 195, 196, pl. 4, figs. 8–10.
+Perrilliat, 2013
+. p. 134, figs. 4.3, 4.4. Not
+
+Eocypraea novasumma
+(
+Nelson, 1925
+)
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Holotype
+and Type Locality—
+
+UCMP 30499
+(
+Figs. 8A–C
+), length
+15.8 mm
+, width 11.9, height
+9.3 mm
+.
+UCMP
+Locality
+3776,north side
+Meier Canyon
+, south side of
+Simi Valley
+,
+Ventura County
+, southern
+California
+.
+
+
+
+Referred Specimens—Hypotype
+(of
+Zinsmeister, 1974
+,
+1983
+)
+UCR
+6871/13 (not
+UCR
+3776/1),
+UCR
+Local- ity 6871, from the Santa Susana Formation on the north side of Simi Hills, Simi Valley, Ventura County, southern California.
+Hypotype
+(of
+Paredes-Mejia, 1989
+)
+IGM
+4388,
+PU
+Locality 1334, Mesa San Carlos,
+Baja California
+,
+México
+(= hypotype
+IGM
+4367 of
+Perrilliat, 2013
+).
+
+
+Occurrence—
+Middle Paleocene, southern California to northern
+Baja California
+,
+México
+.
+Selandian Stage:
+
+
+
+Figure 8A–C.
+
+Eocypraea novasumma
+(
+Nelson, 1925
+)
+
+, Santa Susana Formation (Paleocene, Thanetian Stage), Runkle Canyon, north side Simi Hills, Ventura County, southern
+California
+. Basal
+(A)
+, dorsal
+(B)
+, and right-labral
+(C)
+views, 3.2x, length
+17 mm
+, width
+11.6 mm
+, height
+9.3 mm
+, of
+holotype
+UCMP
+30499,
+UCMP
+Locality 4776.
+D–F.
+
+Eocypraea takeosusukii
+Groves, 2011
+
+, “Martinez” Formation (Paleocene, Thanetian), Lower Lake area, Lake County, northern
+California
+. Basal (
+D
+), dorsal (
+E
+), and left-lateral (columellar) views, 2.6x, length
+18.8 mm
+,
+
+width
+14.4 mm
+, height
+11.2 mm
+, of
+holotype
+LACMIP 7045.1
+,
+LACMIP
+Type 13645,
+LACMIP
+Locality 7045 [
+ex
+
+CIT
+Locality 1580].
+G–I.
+
+Eocypraea
+sp.
+
+, cf.
+
+E. inflata
+(
+Lamarck, 1802
+)
+
+, “Domengine Formation” (Eocene, “Domen- gine Stage”), Reef Ridge, Kings County, central
+California
+. Basal (
+G
+), dorsal (
+H
+), and right (labral) (
+I
+) views, 1.8x, length
+26 mm
+, width
+17.7 mm
+, height
+13 mm
+, of hypotype
+UCMP
+15815, Locality
+UCMP
+A-1282.
+J–L.
+
+Eocypraea
+sp.
+
+Lodo Formation (basal part) (Paleocene, Thanetian Stage), Tumey Hills, Fresno County, central
+California
+. Basal (
+J
+), dorsal (
+K
+), and right (labral) (
+L
+) views, 1.5x, length
+33 mm
+, width
+21.5 mm
+, height
+19 mm
+, of hypotype
+CASG
+61666.04 [
+ex
+LSJU
+10236],
+CASG
+Locality 61666 [
+ex
+LSJU
+Locality 2073; =
+UCMP
+Locality A-9717].
+M–P.
+
+Grovesia castacensis
+
+(
+Stewart, 1926
+[1927]),
+
+Tejon Formation
+(Eocene, “Tejon Stage”),
+Tehachapi Mountains
+,
+Kern County
+, southern
+California
+.
+Basal
+(M)
+, dorsal
+(N),
+and left (columellar)
+(O)
+views, 4.5x, length
+12.2 mm
+, width
+7.8 mm
+, height
+5.9 mm
+, of
+holotype
+UCMP 11690
+, Grapevine Canyon,
+UCMP
+Locality 452. Basal (
+P
+) view, 3.4x, length
+15.5 mm
+, width
+9.1 mm
+, height
+6.9 mm
+, of hypotype
+LACMIP 41206.2
+,
+LACMIP
+Type 14941, base of Metralla Sandstone Member, Live Oak Canyon,
+LACMIP
+Locality 41206
+
+.
+
+
+
+Santa Susana Formation (lower part), north side Simi Valley, Ventura County, southern
+California
+(
+Zinsmeister 1974
+,
+1983
+;
+Groves 1992
+, 1993, 1997, 2011).
+
+
+
+
+Etymology—
+Originally from Latin
+
+novasumma
+
+‘new ones’ … a new species.
+
+
+
+
+Description—
+Shell small and smooth; inflated; left-lateral side more inflated than right-lateral side (thereby producing moderate “lop-sided” shape. Shell widest me- dially. Basal surface slightly inflated. Left-lateral posterior side of shell lowly protruding. Spire covered (involute?). Aperture straight, widens anteriorly, and prominently curved posteriorly adxially (to the left). Outer lip broad, flattish and with very subdued small teeth. Inner lip teeth also subdued and apparently more numerous and more closely spaced than those on outer lip.
+
+
+
+
+Remarks—
+Preservation of the
+holotype
+of this spe- cies’ dentition is very poor. The anteriormost end of the
+holotype
+is missing. Only a few specimens are known of the small-sized species. In the Simi Hills,
+
+E. novasumma
+
+occurs only low in the Santa Susana Formation in Runkle and Meier canyons, where its type locality is in the vicin- ity of the type locality of
+
+Propusularia
+kemperae
+
+, whose geologic age was discussed earlier in this present paper and is of Selandian age. A poorly preserved specimen from the Santa Susana Formation, Quarry Canyon area, Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County, California (
+LACMIP
+11677.1,
+LACMIP
+Type 14927),
+LACMIP
+Local- ity 11677, may be
+
+E. novasumma
+.
+
+An additional poorly preserved internal mold from the Sepultura Formation, Santa Catarina,
+Baja California
+,
+México
+(
+LACMIP
+6364.1, Type
+LACMIP
+14928) (
+LACMIP
+Locality 6364) may also be
+
+E. novasumma
+
+.
+
+
+Schilder and Schilder (1971)
+listed
+
+E. novasumma
+
+as a synonym of
+
+E. sabuloviridis
+
+(
+Whitfield, 1892
+, pp. 223, 224, pl. 32, figs. 20–22), of the Eocene Greensand Marls of
+New Jersey
+but they offered no explanation for this assignment. The
+holotype
+of
+
+E. sabuloviridis
+
+is a poorly preserved internal mold, which does not resemble
+
+E. novasumma
+
+.
+
+
+In the Sepultura Formation, Mesa San Carlos, Baja Cali- fornia,
+México
+,
+
+Eocypraea novasumma
+
+has been reported from the same area as where specimens of
+
+Propustularia kemperae
+
+(
+Paredes-Mejia 1989
+: p. 503;
+Perrilliat 2013
+: p. 29) were reported. However, the specimen, with different
+IGM
+hypotype numbers, reported by both
+Paredes-Mejia (1989)
+and
+Perrilliat (2013)
+is poorly preserved and does not favorably compare to the
+holotype
+and is likely another species.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFD5FFAEFC67FDC4FA01F939.xml b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFD5FFAEFC67FDC4FA01F939.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..8c5b28378dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFD5FFAEFC67FDC4FA01F939.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+
+
+
+Revision of northeast Pacific Paleogene cypraeoidean gastropods, including recognition of three new species: implications for paleobiogeographic distribution and faunal turnover
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Groves, Lindsey
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Squires, Richard L.
+
+text
+
+
+PaleoBios
+
+
+2023
+
+2023-08-10
+
+
+40
+
+
+10
+
+
+1
+52
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/p9401057774
+
+journal article
+10.5070/P9401057774
+0031-0298
+10913295
+11600574-2B0E-4C13-BC08-A3A5EF9EE562
+
+
+
+
+
+CYPRAEOIDEA
+RAFINESQUE, 1815
+
+
+
+
+
+Remarks—
+The classification and phylogenetic rela- tionships of cypraeiodeans are currently in a state of flux.
+Schilder and Schilder (1971)
+developed a classification scheme based on radula, osphradium, and shell charac- teristics,much of which was published in
+Schilder (1936)
+. The classification system used in the present report for the higher systematics (phylum to superfamily) are from
+Bouchet et al. (2017)
+. The lower classification system (below superfamily level) is used, as follows:
+Cypraeidae
+from
+Lorenz (2017)
+;
+Eocypraeidae
+from various sources including
+Dolin and Lozouet (2004)
+,
+Dolin and Pacaud (2009)
+,
+Lorenz and Fehse (2009)
+, and
+Fehse (2021)
+; and
+Eratoidae
+from
+Schilder and Schilder (1971)
+. As noted by
+Groves (2019
+: p. 132) and
+Fehse (2021
+: p. 19), taxa within Cypraeoidea include the so-called true cowries (family
+
+Cypraeidae
+Rafinesque, 1815
+
+); egg and spindle cowries (family
+
+Ovulidae
+Fleming, 1822
+
+); pedicularias (family
+
+Pediculariidae
+Gray, 1853
+
+), eocypraeids (family
+
+Eocypraeidae
+Schilder, 1924a
+
+); false cowries (family
+
+Trividae
+Troschel, 1863
+
+), eratos (family
+
+Eratoidae
+Gill, 1871
+
+); and lamellarias (family
+
+Velutinidae
+Gray, 1840
+
+).
+
+
+The genera in this present report are arranged (sys- tematically), according to their present classification. The arrangement at the species level is, however, alphabetical for each genus (
+Table 1
+). Summaries of the synonyms (different names for the same species) and chresonyms (usages of any given scientific name), given in the “Sys- tematic Paleontology” section for each species, represent combinations of synonomy and chresonomy. The latter term is used in the sense of
+Smith and Smith (1972)
+.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFDFFFA4FE93FF78FADCF874.xml b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFDFFFA4FE93FF78FADCF874.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..640b57f91bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFDFFFA4FE93FF78FADCF874.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,342 @@
+
+
+
+Revision of northeast Pacific Paleogene cypraeoidean gastropods, including recognition of three new species: implications for paleobiogeographic distribution and faunal turnover
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Groves, Lindsey
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Squires, Richard L.
+
+text
+
+
+PaleoBios
+
+
+2023
+
+2023-08-10
+
+
+40
+
+
+10
+
+
+1
+52
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/p9401057774
+
+journal article
+10.5070/P9401057774
+0031-0298
+10913295
+11600574-2B0E-4C13-BC08-A3A5EF9EE562
+
+
+
+
+
+
+SUBEPONA GOEDERTORUM
+
+
+
+
+(
+GROVES
+AND
+SQUIRES, 1995
+)
+
+
+
+
+FIGS. 4I–N
+
+
+
+
+
+Proadusta goedertorum
+Groves and Squires, 1995
+
+. pp. 113–116, figs. 2–5 [fig. 4 is a right-lateral view, not a left-lateral view as stated in the caption; fig. 5 is a left-lateral view, not a right-lateral view as stated in the caption].
+Fehse, 2009
+. pp., 16, 19; fig. 32.
+
+
+
+Subepona goedertorum
+(Groves and Squires)
+
+.
+Dolin and Lozouet, 2004
+. p. 62.
+Pacaud, 2018a
+. p. 10 (table 2).
+
+
+
+Eopustularia goedertorum
+(Groves and Squires)
+
+.
+Fehse, 2010
+. p. 5 (as
+
+Proadusta goedertorum
+
+).
+Lorenz, 2017
+. p. 210.
+Lorenz, 2018
+. p. 662, pl. 327, fig. 11.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Holotype
+and Type Locality—
+
+LACMIP 16655.23
+,
+LACMIP
+Type
+12375 (
+Figs. 4I–L
+), length
+19.4 mm
+, width
+12.3 mm
+, and height
+10.8 mm
+.
+LACMIP
+Locality
+16655 [=
+LACMIP
+Locality 41563;
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 1563], upper part of
+Crescent Formation
+,
+Larch Mountain area
+,
+Black Hills
+,
+Thurston County
+, southwestern
+Washington
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+Paratype
+
+—
+LACMIP 16655.24
+
+,
+
+LACMIP
+Type 12376, length
+17.1 mm
+, width
+10.4 mm
+, and height
+8.9 mm
+. Locality same as
+holotype
+
+.
+
+
+Referred Specimens—Hypotype
+
+LACMIP 40807.1
+
+,
+
+LACMIP
+Type
+14935, (
+
+Figs.
+4M, N
+
+), length 19.0 mm, width 13.8, and height
+9.4 mm
+
+.
+LACMIP
+
+Locality
+16191 [=
+LACMIP
+Locality 40807;
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 807), Jun- cal Formation, Canton Canyon, Whitaker Peak area,
+Los Angeles County
+, southern
+California
+. A poorly preserved specimen from
+LACMIP
+Locality 16848 [
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 1564], from the Rock Candy Mountain area, Thurston County,
+Washington
+, also exhibits original shell material. Two additional poorly preserved specimens,
+LACMIP 41599.1
+, from the Crescent Formation,
+LACMIP
+Local- ity 41599 (
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 1599), Middle Fork Satsop River, Dry Lakes quadrangle, Mason County,
+Washington
+are noted.
+
+
+
+Occurrence—
+Lower to late early Eocene,
+Washington
+to southern
+California
+.
+“Capay Stage
+”: Upper part of Crescent Formation, Larch Mountain area, Black Hills, Thurston County, southwestern
+Washington
+(
+Groves and Squires 1995
+) at
+LACMIP
+Locality 16848 [
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 1564], Thurston County, in the general vicin- ity of the
+type
+locality (for more details, see
+Groves and Squires 1995
+: p. 116). Juncal Formation, Canton Canyon, Whitaker Peak area, Ventura County, southern
+California
+at
+LACMIP
+Locality 40807 [=
+LACMIP
+Locality 16191;
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 807] (new information). The Juncal Formation specimen, which is from the middle lower Eocene (“Capay Stage” = “
+
+Turritella uvasana infera
+
+” fauna) in the Juncal Formation, was originally believed by
+Squires (1987
+: p. 35, unfigured) to be a questionable (juvenile) specimen of
+
+Gisortia clarki
+Ingram, 1940
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+Etymology—
+Originally named for colleagues James L. (Jim) and the late Gail H. Goedert [1940-2017] (Gig Harbor,
+Washington
+).
+
+
+
+
+Description—
+Shell small to medium in size (ho- lotype largest known specimen). Shell ovate, slightly elongate, smooth, dorsum medium to highly arched, maximum height near midpoint. Rostrate (can be beak- like) extremities present on both sides of exhalant canal, with labrial extremity large and more curved relative to much shorter and much straighter columellar extrem- ity. Slight depression (shallow pit) can be present above submerged spire on more mature specimen. Marginal border on shell sides very weak but noticeable near ends of shell. Basal surface of shell wide and slightly convex to flattened (on less mature specimen). Aperture gener- ally narrow and straight throughout most of its length but posteriorly labral side noticeably curved slightly toward columella. Mature specimen labial lip (outer lip) with 26 strong teeth. Mature specimen columellar lip with 17 slightly weaker teeth. Terminal fold (on each lip) long, thin, extended, and bladelike. Siphonal canal long, wide, deep and clearly distinct from curve of shell margin. Basal marginal callus (border) on both sides of shell but strongest on left side; callus produced at both extremities, especially on anterior extremity. (
+Groves and Squires, 1995
+: pp. 114, 115).
+
+
+
+
+Remarks—
+This species is rare. The six known speci- mens of
+
+Subepona goedertorum
+
+range range in preser- vation from poor to excellent. It is characterized by its smooth shell, unequal-strength rostrate posterior ter- minae, inflated dorsum, presence of a slight depression in the submerged-spire area, strong but short dentition on both lips, and prominent terminal folds (one on each anterior end of shell).
+
+Subpeona goedertorum
+
+closely resembles
+
+S. herrerensis
+Dolin and Lozouet (2004
+
+: pl. 27, figs. 3a–3c), the type species of
+
+Subepona
+
+from
+France
+. The
+holotypes
+are near each other in size: the
+holotype
+of
+
+S. goedertorum
+
+is
+19.4 mm
+length; the
+holotype
+of
+
+S. herrerensis
+
+is
+14 mm
+.
+
+
+Pacaud (2018a
+: table 2) listed
+
+Subepona goedertorum
+(
+Groves and Squires, 1995
+)
+
+as occurring in
+France
+, as well as the
+United States
+, and no geologic nor paleontologic details were provided. The “occurrence” of this species in
+France
+is likely a typographic error.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFF1FF8BFC49FF78FD0BFE68.xml b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFF1FF8BFC49FF78FD0BFE68.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c78cd926125
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/92/1F/D9/921FD94CFFF1FF8BFC49FF78FD0BFE68.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
+
+
+
+Revision of northeast Pacific Paleogene cypraeoidean gastropods, including recognition of three new species: implications for paleobiogeographic distribution and faunal turnover
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Groves, Lindsey
+
+
+
+Author
+
+Squires, Richard L.
+
+text
+
+
+PaleoBios
+
+
+2023
+
+2023-08-10
+
+
+40
+
+
+10
+
+
+1
+52
+
+
+
+
+http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/p9401057774
+
+journal article
+10.5070/P9401057774
+0031-0298
+10913295
+11600574-2B0E-4C13-BC08-A3A5EF9EE562
+
+
+
+
+
+
+LUPONOVULA MANIOBRAENSIS
+
+
+
+(SQUIRES AND ADVOCATE, 1986) N. COMB.
+
+
+
+FIGS. 9M–P
+
+
+
+
+
+Eocypraea
+?
+maniobraensis
+Squires and Advocate, 1986
+
+. pp. 856, 857, figs. 2.5, 2.6.
+Squires, 1991
+. p. 219, 220, 225; pl. 1, fig. 23.
+
+
+
+Eocypraea
+(
+Eocypraea
+)
+maniobraensis
+Squires and Advocate.
+Groves, 1992
+
+. p. 106 [not 1987 as in table 1].
+Groves, 1993
+. p. 11 [not 1983 as in text].
+Groves, 1997
+. p. 8 [as
+E.
+
+(
+E
+.)
+maniobraensis
+
+]. Groves, 2011. p. 46 (table 1).
+
+
+
+Eocypraea maniobraensis
+Squires and Advocate.
+Fehse, 2001
+
+. p. 20.
+Groves and Squires, 2021
+. p. 231 (as
+
+Eocypraea
+
+?).
+Fehse, 2021
+. p. 42.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Holotype
+and Type Locality—
+
+LACMIP10566.4
+, LAC- MIP Type 10566 (
+ex
+UCLA 48431
+) (
+Figs. 9M–O
+), length
+39.6 mm
+, width
+22.8 mm
+, height 21.1.
+LACMIP
+Locality
+23779 [
+ex
+UCLA
+Locality 3779;
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 662],
+Maniobra Formation
+,
+Orocopia Mountains
+,
+Riverside County
+, southern
+California
+.
+
+
+
+Referred Specimen—Hypotype (herein)
+
+LACMIP 40491.1
+
+,
+
+LACMIP
+Type
+14945 (
+Fig. 9P
+)
+
+,
+LACMIP
+
+Locality 40491 [
+ex
+CSUN
+Locality 491],
+Llajas Formation
+, is from a faulted area low in the stratigraphic section of this for- mation (see geologic map in
+Squires 1984
+: fig. 16) in
+Las Llajas Canyon
+, north side of
+Simi Valley
+,
+Ventura County
+, southern
+California
+[new information].
+This Llajas
+For- mation specimen has been crushed but retains enough morphological features to identify it as
+
+L. maniobraensis
+
+
+.
+
+
+Occurrence—
+Lower Eocene (“Capay Stage”), Llajas Formation, southwestern Santa Susana Mountains, Los Angeles County, southern
+California
+, Ventura County (new information) to Maniobra Formation, Orocopia Mountains, Riverside County, southern
+California
+(
+Squires and Advocate 1986
+;
+Squires 1991
+).
+
+
+
+
+Etymology—
+Originally named for the Eocene Manio- bra Formation, Riverside County, southern
+California
+.
+
+
+
+
+Description—
+Shell size medium; very inflated; ovatepyriform. Shell widest medially. Base inflated. Spire in- volute. Aperture narrow and near right margin of shell; aperture elongate anteriorly and curved posteriorly. Aperture narrow and prominently curved. Outer lip nar- row, with numerous teeth that become stronger toward anterior of aperture. Inner lip with numerous small teeth.
+
+
+
+
+Remarks—
+This is an uncommon species. The an- teriormost part of the
+holotype
+is missing. The dorsal view of this species is shown for the first time in
+
+Figure
+4M.
+
+
+Luponovula maniobraensis
+
+most closely resembles
+
+L. oligovata
+
+(
+Sacco 1894
+: pl. 3, fig. 25;
+Cossmann 1903
+: pl. 7, fig. 2) of late early Oligocene age (Latorfian) from the
+Liguria
+and
+Piedmont
+regions of
+Italy
+and
+
+L. normalis
+
+(
+de Gregorio 1880
+: pl. 6, fig. 14) of middle Eocene age (Lutetian) from San Giovanni Illarione,
+Veneto
+,
+Italy
+. In comparison,
+
+Luponovula maniobraensis
+
+differs by having fewer teeth on its columellar lip, as well as having fewer and shorter teeth on the interior of its outer lip.
+
+
+
+
\ No newline at end of file