Taxonomic review of Aclis Lóven, 1846 (Gastropoda, Eulimidae) from Brazil with notes on other congeners from the western Atlantic and Saint Helena Author Souza, Leonardo Santos De 0000-0002-8242-010X Author Araújo, Tarciso Almeida De 0000-0002-8242-010X Departamento de Invertebrados, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista., São Cristóvão, 20940 - 040, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Author Pimenta, Alexandre Dias 0000-0002-8242-010X Departamento de Invertebrados, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista., São Cristóvão, 20940 - 040, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. text Zootaxa 2024 2024-04-09 5433 4 451 499 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5433.4.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.5433.4.1 1175-5326 10954420 7ADF6A54-E31C-453A-AA25-44DEDBCF2752 ‘ Aclis ’ gittenbergeri ( de Jong & Coomans, 1988 ) Figs 24D–E Bermudaclis gittenbergeri de Jong & Coomans, 1988: 59 , pl. 4, fig. 303. Type material. Holotype : ZMA.MOLL.138263. Paratype : Aruba ; West coast of Aruba ; ZMA.MOLL.138275 [1]. Type locality. Aruba : West coast of Aruba . FIGURE 25 . Type localities of Aclis form the Western Atlantic (top left) and specimen records of Aclis species in Brazil. Type localities in Brazil according to colored circles; type localities in North America: 1. Aclis eolis ; 2. Aclis foridana , Aclis rushi ; 3. Aclis dalli , Aclis conula , Aclis stilifer , Aclis pyramida , Aclis georgiana , Aclis hendersoni , Aclis marguerita , Aclis fernandinae ; 4. Aclis v errilli ; 5. Aclis tenuis . Remarks. This species was originally described in Bermudaclis Bartsch, 1947 , which is a junior synonym of Murchisonella Mörch, 1875 ( Peñas & Rolán 2013 ). Peñas & Rolán (2013: 61) noted that this species is not a Murchisonellidae , but possibly belongs to Aclis . However, the presence of low axial ribs and fine spiral striae in the whole teleoconch surface ( Fig. 24D, E ) does not fit in Aclis . The protoconch of this species seems slightly deviated. The study of the type material under SEM would be necessary for better classification, but we here suggest that this species is a ‘lower heterobranch’.