Talk:List of non-marine molluscs of the Netherlands

A note

Dear Snek01, I have made some changes in the list. 'Stichting Anemoon', on which data this page has been based, apparently has no knowledge at all about the fossil occurrence of molluscs, including the Holocene. They apparently also didn't read 'De Nederlandse Zoetwatermollusken', the book about freshwater molluscs of the Netherlands, including their fossil record and Quaternary taxa not anymore occurring (or extinct). Rather disappointing.

Lithoglyphus, Lauria, Cecilioides, Alinda, Oxychilus draparnaudi, Candidula, Cernuella, Cochlicella, Monacha, Theba, Helix aspersa, Helix pomatia, Sphaerium transversum, Dreissena dont't have a fossil record in the Netherlands from any part of the Quaternary, including the Holocene. I consider these taxa as non-indigenous in the Netherlands (as well as in most parts of the North European lowlands).

Cecilioides appears with the introduction of agriculture in the region. Alinda could have been arrived with the Romans, as did the Roman snail Helix pomatia, Lithoglyphus and Dreissena appeared after the first connection between the Danube and the Rhine during the nineteenth century. There should have also taxa been introduced by the import of stones and other material for dike-construction from the 16th century onwards.

On the other hand Ferrissia wautieri has a fossil record from several interglacials, from the very early Tiglian to the Holocene. From the latter it is known from deposits dating from c. 1200 AD. I am pretty sure that this species simply has been overlooked. This also means that this is an old European taxon, contrary to what has been suggested by many after its discovery in the modern fauna. The taxon is also present in Pliocene deposits from France and Early Pleistocene deposits from Hungary.

I have changed the list accordingly.

It is good to know that the fossil record of non-marine molluscs is very well known from the Netherlands, with rather many outcrops and hundreds of boreholes investigated covering deposits from the Pliocene and the Quaternary.

I assume that the term 'extinct' means that the taxon went extinct after it was 'officially' known from the country. The species has been known for some time from the region and this was recorded in the literature. This, although regularly used in this meaning, is not the correct meaning of 'extinct' because this implies 'total disappearance of the taxon everywhere'. This is not the case in these taxa. In the correct meaning of this term I could add several dozens of taxa that only went extinct during the Quaternary, and hundreds during the Neogene. Maybe the terms 'disappeared', or 'not observed anymore' are better. The latter is probably the best. 'Vertigo moulinsiana' was thought to be very close to extinction because it only lived in one site. During the last 25 years a few other sites have been discovered. Obviously this doesn't mean that the taxon is not threatened anymore, but it shows that one should look in the right habitats. So, if the last site disappeared the species was not 'extinct' but 'not observed anymore'.

I can guess your reasons for hiding the Rdix species, although this had better not been done. But why did you hide Potamopyrgus antipodarum? Many people consider this the right name for Potamopyrgus jenkinsi as this was initially named. Personally I do not believe that this is a single species. I know that it is partenogenetic and therefore able to produce 'races', but does this imply that these are able to co-occur without showing in-between forms? This is of course not to be solved here.--Tom Meijer 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Another note

I have gone through the list once more and have added authors+date to several taxa. I also made some changes in the nomenclature according to the CLECOM lists. I know that not all people agree with their views but we have to admit that this is the only work that covers all Europe (and several other areas such as Turkey as well). If you don't use such a compilation (that is more or less working under the wings of Unitas Malacologica) there will be a moment that you will get into trouble. Many countries have more or less their 'own' taxonomy, systematics and nomenclature depending of the ideas of the local specialists (which may be right anyway!). So, regrettably not Trochulus but still Trichia, and Cornu aspesum instead of Helix aspersa, etc. --Tom Meijer 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom, thank you for your notes.

• I have changed term extinct to locally extinct.
• All my invisible notes were just my notes to not forget about those species or just I was not sure about it. Those invisible notes can be deleted or species added.
  • So Radix and Stagnicola species should be added but I do not enough information about them.
  • So Potamopyrgus can be added.
• We can add information since the indigenous species is occuring the Netherland. Probably write "non-indigenous since ...". Similarly I have just started it in the List of molluscs recorded in The Czech Republic. --Snek01 19:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See also links

I have written there only links of neighbouring countries in the "See also" section. There will be many lists of molluscs on wikipedia in the future. All lists will be available in appropriate category (now it is Category:Regional invertebrate lists). I suggest to write lists of neighbouring countries only in the "See also" section. --Snek01 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This list is complete now, except for some synantropic taxa (greenhouse and aquaria, etc.). The taxonomy, nomenclature, and systematics is according to the CLECOM list for the Netherlands. In fact I have wikified their list, with the exception of most of the higher taxa, as well as the subgenera. In the future I will do my best to complete the list with synantropic taxa.

It is OK to add only links to surrounding countries. --Tom Meijer 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Marine species

I will add the marine species later. This will mainly be based upon:

• Bruyne, R.H. de, Bank, R.A., Adema, J.P.H.M. & Perk, F.A., 1994. Nederlandse naamlijst van de weekdieren (Mollusca) van Nederland en België. Feestuitgave ter gelegenheid van het zestigjarig jubileum van de Nederlandse Malacologische Vereniging. Backhuys, Leiden. 149 pp. ISBN 90-733-48-33-1 --Tom Meijer 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A general point: for marine species we plan to use a much larger area than one country, since the maine fauna is likely to be very nearly identical in all European countries that have contiguous coastlines. Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of non-marine molluscs of the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721010207/http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2009/AI_2009_4_2_Soes_etal.pdf to http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2009/AI_2009_4_2_Soes_etal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715163008/http://home.earthlink.net/~gastropod/Tentacle15x.pdf to http://home.earthlink.net/~gastropod/Tentacle15x.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928031044/http://www.gnm.se/gnm/clecom/eng_clecom.asp?res=1280 to http://www.gnm.se/gnm/clecom/eng_clecom.asp?res=1280

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)