Boreancistrolepis Habe 1972

Subfamily Parancistrolepidinae Habe, 1972

Diagnosis: Shell with suture constricted; sculpture chiefly spiral; aperture short, lacking long anterior canal; siphonal notch U-shaped, base of lip projecting anteriorly in some genera. Early teleconch whorls dome shaped, apex not projecting. Operculum narrow to broad, convex, with terminal nucleus. Radula most species with the rachidian and lateral teeth each with three sharply pointed cusps.

Remarks: Habe, 1972 proposed Parancistrolepidinae (as Parancistrolepisinae) as distinct from Ancistrolepidinae (as Ancistrolepisinae), based on differences in the radula and the operculum between Parancistrolepis kinoshitai (Kuroda, 1931) and Ancistrolepis grammatus (Dall, 1907), and the type of the genus, Ancistrolepis eucosmius (Dall, 1891). Although he used the name Ancistrolepisinae, and implied that the two previously mentioned species were included in it, no actual diagnosis of the subfamily was offered, only a distinction between the radula and opercula of the two. Although the use of the name Ancistrolepisinae and its type species were implied (before the use of Parancistrolepidinae), however no diagnosis for Ancistrolepidinae was published until 1973. Parancistrolepidinae was selected by Kantor et al. (2022) as the subfamily name, as it is uncertain if the rule of strict priority applies in this case and if the implied association is sufficient for validation (Kantor, personal comm. September, 2021). The rule of “first reviewer” (Kantor et al. 2022) may apply in this case and would render the question mute. This case may need to be reviewed by the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. Egg capsules solitary, large, elongate-oval with long stalk. Capsule smooth (Kantor 1988).