Abstract: Opercula of
L. tectum and
L. americanum were compared and no consistent distinguishable differences could be ascertained. Sculpture of the base was also found to vary with overlapping characters that would not permit consistent distinction. Spire sculpture presented fairly consistent differences, but probably not sufficient to confirm speciation versus polymorphism without DNA confirmation. It is probable that these two forms are a single species; namely,
Lithopoma tectum (Lightfoot, 1786).
Part 1 – The OperculumWhen I first presented
L. tectum and
L. americanum, I presented them as separate species largely upon the erroneous perception of differing opercula (see the presentation charts dated May 2011, retained below). The external features (teleoconch and base) of many univalve species that populate widely varying habitats can be dramatically influenced by the differing habitat and/or environmental conditions in which they develop and, as a result, can vary dramatically in appearance. External features are also often susceptible to more rapid evolutionary habitat adaptation. However, the operculum for many species is a far more conservative anatomical feature and is little, if at all, in form and/or function, influenced by environment. Similarly, relatively, the operculum would be expected to display a more conservative evolutionary change than external features, especially where the principal or only function of the operculum is to close the aperture to resist drying out and predator protection. In other words, while the external features of the shell of a species may vary considerably due to environmental (ecomorphs, ecophenotypes), polymorphic (within species genetic variation) or more rapid adaptive change, the operculum is far more conservative and less likely to be so influenced in many species. Therefore, despite the presence of variable external features within many species, the operculum remains constant and can be a reliable basis for identification and concluding the same species is at hand. So, when I initially believed
L. tectum and
L. americanum had distinctly differing opercula, I concluded they were indeed separate species. As it turned out, I was erroneously relying upon a specimen of
L. tectum preserved with a mismatched operculum.
My May 2001 presentation of
L. tectum relied upon a single specimen collected in 1982. However, as several astute readers noted after reviewing my presentation, the operculum I presented looked far more like the operculum of
L. caelatum than of
L. tectum or
L. americanum. After a far more in depth search on the net, it appeared (and I finally concluded) that the wrong operculum had been erroneously paired with the
L. tectum shell back in 1982 when I was a novice collector.
Tom Watters, Curator of Molluscs, Museum of Biological Diversity, Ohio State University, who had first questioned the operculum I presented, offered to send me the museum’s collection of
Lithopoma for examination. I accepted and presently had several
L. tectum and more
L. americanum to examine.
In total, my review included the following material from my collection and that provided by Tom (all with opercula):
L. tectum: Bahamas 9; Honduras 6; Belize 6; Grenada 5; Puerto Rico 2; Upper Florida Keys 2; Middle Florida Keys 1; and Brazil 1
L. americanum: Bahamas 3; Biscayne Bay, Florida 5; Upper Florida Keys 10; Middle Florida Keys 14; and Lower Florida Keys 4
My review first focused on a comparison of opercula. Immediately to the point, as the below slides illustrate, I could not distinguish any meaningful differences between the
L. tectum and
L. americanum opercula. I requested
Harry Lee to review my photos and he agreed. Because I wanted the images to be as large as possible so detail could be readily seen, I am presenting two sets of several slides each in different sizes. As a result, there is a bit of repetition.












The following detailed description fits all of the opercula of both
L. tectum and
L. americanum I examined.

Part 2 – The External Features One suggestion was that
L. tectum and
L. americanum might be ecophenotypes - two forms of the same species with differing adaptive external physical characters resulting from environmental or ecological factors rather than genetic expression. Another was that they were polymorphs - genetically driven differing phenotypes of the same species occurring simultaneously in the same randomly mating population. I believe the illustrations comparing
L. tectum and
L. americanum taken from the same specific locations/habitats on the same collecting occasions (slides 1.21 and 1.25) argue against ecophenotypes and for the likelihood they are polymorphs. My limited comparison of Bahamian material (slide 1.23) also suggests this. However, I do not have sufficient comparative material of this type (different phenotypes from same locations) or any for the West Indian and South American locales to be able to draw a firm conclusion. If it is the case that these two are polymorphs, it does appear that the
L. tectum form is far more dominant in the West Indian and South American locales, that
L. americanum dominates in Florida, and it may be a mixed bag in the Bahamas. More extensive comparative specimens with good collecting data would be needed to draw convincing conclusions.
And, we solicit reports, photos and specimens (loan only for photography – all to be returned) to contribute to a larger sample for addressing this issue from a morphological perspective. Obviously, a comprehensive DNA-based study could accomplish the same objective with a much smaller sample. Unfortunately, a reliable hand-held DNA analysis device is not yet available for us collectors to take with us into the field. I keep hoping it’ll be developed while I’m still able to get into the field.
To ascertain the possibility of consistent morphological differences of the shells I compared external features of shells labeled
L. tectum and
L. americanum from two perspectives – the base and the teleoconch.
Part 2.1 – The baseConsidering the descriptions I had of
L. tectum and
L. americanum in several publications, comments on hand from other collectors and the one
L. tectum I had available, my initial descriptions of these shells took the position that the sculpture of the bases differed in one consistent aspect as noted in slide 2 (from initial presentation) presented here.

I compared the bases of my expanded population of material and found the degree of expression of sculptural features of the base was quite variable (especially at differing stages of maturity), but otherwise quite consistent, including the small spiral ridge at the base of the columella crossed by more elevated axial knobs. While this latter character was consistently present in all
L. americanum in my sample, and was not present in some
L. tectum, it was indeed present in more
L. tectum than not. The following slides present six comparisons illustrating the variable, but consistent expression of characters on the base, which, coalescing various descriptions, has been described as flattened with several spiral cords separated by moderately deep grooves; the cords crossed by numerous thin imbrications (most evident in juveniles) that are more knob-like in older shells; and having a small spiral ridge at the base of the columella crossed by more elevated axial knobs.





Part 2.2 – The teleoconchI compared the teleoconchs of my expanded population of material and found that spire sculpture presented fairly consistent differences. Not really a surprise. After all, that’s exactly the issue. Because the most apparent, gross morphological sculpture is most often relied upon to differentiate, and when it occurs and a differential label is applied, then those who come after with similar shells apply the differential label. But, are they really different because they look a little different and have a different label? It may well be that the differences in spire sculpture reflected in two polymorphs of the same species have given rise to two differential labels and been the basis used by collectors to group shells either
L. tectum or
L. americanum. The two are essentially the same except that shells labeled
L. tectum display fewer, more widely spaced axial ribs that are stronger over their entire length, are more pronounced at the abapical end, often project over the suture, and terminate in open spines.
L. tectum is also often described as larger. My opinion is that these differences reflect two polymorphs and that enough shells with “mixed” or “cross-over” characters exist to demonstrate a continuum and not speciation. Only far more of a broadly geographic sample or a comprehensive DNA study will resolve this matter. The following slides present direct comparisons of shells labeled as
L. tectum or
L. americanum. However, in my opinion, with heaviest reliance on the examination of the opercula and failure to find any distinguishing differences, I believe all these shells should be considered one species; namely,
Lithopoma tectum (Lightfoot, 1786).






















Here are a few slides of the live animal.



The slides (edited for brevity and some correction of prior errors) in the next post are my initial presentations (May 2011) of
L. americanum (now labeled
L. tectum americanum to indicate it is a morph of
L. tectum) and
L. tectum for reference. The descriptions are still valid and should be considered to apply to both forms of
Lithopoma tectum (Lightfoot, 1786) with that for
L. americanum most applicable to the
L. tectum americanum morph and that for
L. tectum most applicable to the
L. tectum tectum morph.