Paläontologische Zeitschrift

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 147–159 | Cite as

Europrotomus (Mollusca: Caenogastropoda: Strombidae): a new Middle Miocene European strombid genus (Revision of Euprotomus Gill, 1870. Part 4)

Research Paper

Abstract

The medium-sized, strongly ornamented nominal species Strombus schroeckingeri Hörnes in Hoernes & Auinger, 1884 is well known from Langhian deposits of the Paratethys Sea. Its traditional generic affiliation in the literature with Euprotomus Gill, 1870, implicated a biogeographic relation of the Paratethys and the proto-Mediterranean with the Neogene Indo-West-Pacific region. This relation, however, is problematic because the Tethys Seaway was already closed or a very shallow, strongly evaporitic passage at that time. Despite its superficial similarity with extant genera of the IWP region, the genus is unrelated to all known strombid genera and represents a new genus, which is introduced herein as Europrotomus nov. gen. The genus comprises only one or maybe two species, which occur in the European Middle Miocene geological record. No ancestors are known so far. This sudden occurrence is discussed as immigration from an adjacent bioprovince rather than as a result of autochthonous evolution. Hypothetically, such a biogeographic source area might have been established along the coasts of tropical West Africa—a scenario that is already documented for Pleistocene times.

Keywords

Gastropoda Strombidae Euprotomus New genus Miocene Biogeography Paratethys 

Kurzfassung

Die nominale Art Strombus schroeckingeri Hörnes in Hoernes & Auinger, 1884 ist ein stark ornamentierter Strombidae von mittlerer Größe, der aus dem Langhium der Paratethys gut dokumentiert ist. Die traditionelle generische Zuordnung zu Euprotomus Gill, 1870 implizierte eine biogeographische Beziehung zwischen der Paratethys und dem Proto-Mediterran sowie der neogenen Indo-West-Pazifischen Region. Diese Verbindung ist jedoch problematisch, da der Tethys-Seeweg zu dieser Zeit bereits geschlossen war oder nur eine sehr seichte, stark evaproritische Passage repräsentierte. Die Gattung zeigt keine nähere Verwandtschaft mit den bekannten Strombiden-Gattungen, trotz der oberflächlichen Ähnlichkeiten mit einigen modernen Vertretern in der IWP-Region. Daher wird hier für dieses Taxon Europrotomus nov. gen. als neue Gattung eingeführt. Diese Gattung beinhaltet nur ein oder zwei Arten, die ausschließlich aus dem europäischen Mittel-Miozän bekannt sind. Bisher konnten keine Vorgänger nachgewiesen werden, weshalb autochthone Evolution als eher unwahrscheinlich betrachtet wird. Stattdessen könnte dieses plötzliche Auftreten durch Immigration von einer benachbarten biogeographischen Provinz erklärt werden. Ein derartiges biogeograpohisches Herkunftsgebiet könnte hypothetisch entlang der tropischen Küsten West-Afrikas etabliert gewesen sein—ein Szenario, das auch aus dem Pleistozän dokumentiert ist.

Schlüsselwörter

Gastropoda Strombidae Euprotomus neue Gattung Miozän Biogeographie Paratethys 

References

  1. Abbott, R.T. 1960. The genus Strombus in the Indo-Pacific. Indo-Pacific Mollusca 1(2): 33–146.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, H., and A. Adams. 1853–1858. The Genera of Recent Mollusca; arranged according to their organization. London: John van Voorst [for details see Trew, 1992].Google Scholar
  3. Adegoke, O.S. 1977. Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Ewekoro formation (Paleocene) of southwestern Nigeria. Bulletins of American Paleontology 71(295): 1–379.Google Scholar
  4. Almera, J., and A. Bofill y Poch. 1885. Moluscos fósiles de los terrenos terciarios superiores de Cataluña. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias de Barcelona 2: 25–45, pls 1–2.Google Scholar
  5. Almera, J., and A. Bofill y Poch. 1886. Moluscos fósiles de los terrenos terciarios superiores de Cataluña. Familia Estrómbidos d’Orbigny. Boletino de Comision de la Mapa geológico del Espana 13: 394–437.Google Scholar
  6. Atanackovic, M.A. 1985. Mekusci Morskog Miocena Bosne. Geologija Bosne I Hercegovine, Fosilna Fauna I Flora 1: 1–308.Google Scholar
  7. Bandel, K. 2007. About the larval shell of some Stromboidea, connected to a review of the classification and phylogeny of the Strombimorpha (Caenogastropoda). Paläontologie, Stratigraphie, Fazies (15), Freiberger Forschungshefte C 524: 97–206.Google Scholar
  8. Beets, C. 1941. Eine Jungmiozäne Mollusken-Fauna von der Halbinsel Mangkalihat, Ost-Borneo (nebst Bemerkungen über andere Faunen von Ost-Borneo; die Leitfossilien-Frage). Verhandelingen van het Geologisch-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland en Kolonien, Geologische Serie 13: 1–282.Google Scholar
  9. Born, I. 1778. Index rerum naturalium Musei Cæsarei Vindobonensis. Pars I.ma. Testacea. Verzeichniß der natürlichen Seltenheiten des k. k. Naturalien Cabinets zu Wien. Erster Theil. Schalthiere. [1–40], 1–458, [1–82]. Vindobonae: Krauss.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buonanni, F. 1681. Ricreatione dell’Occhio e della Mente, nell’osseruation’ delle chiocciole, propost a’ curiosi delle opere della Natura, dal (…). Con quattrocentro e cinquanta figure di testacei diuersi, sopra cui si speigano molti curiosi problemi. [14], 1–384, [15], 1–20, 1–96, 319 figs, Roma.Google Scholar
  11. Cossmann, M. 1904. Essais de Paléoconchologie Compareé. Livraison 6: 1–151. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  12. Cox, L.R. 1952. Cretaceous and Eocene fossils from the Gold Coast. Gold Coast Geological Survey bulletin 17: 1–68.Google Scholar
  13. Crosse, H. 1885. Mollusca fossilia stratum tertiariorum supernorum Cataluniae descripta a doctore D. Jacobo Almera et D. Arthuro Bofill et Poch.—Proemium. Strombidae: Strombus, Rostellaria (1). Journal de Conchyliologie 3e sér 25: 242–243.Google Scholar
  14. Csepreghy-Meznerics, I. 1954. Helvetische und tortonische Fauna aus dem östlichen Cserhátgebirge. Annales de l’Institut Géologique de Hongrie 41: 1–185.Google Scholar
  15. de Grateloup, J.P.S. 1827. Description de plusieurs espèces de coquilles fossiles des environs de Dax (Landes). Bulletin d’Histoire Naturelle de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux 2(7): 3–26.Google Scholar
  16. de Lacépède, B.G.E. 1801. Histoire naturelle des poissons. 3: i–lxvi, 1–558, pls. 1–34. Plassan: Paris.Google Scholar
  17. De Torres, T., J.E. Ortiz, I. Arribas, A. Delgado, R. Julià, and J.A. Martín-Rubí. 2009. Geochemistry of Persististrombus latus Gmelin from the Pleistocene Iberian Mediterranean realm. Lethaia 43: 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillwyn, L.W. 1817. A descriptive catalogue of recent shells arranged according to the Linnaean method with particular attention to the synonymy. Vol. 2, 581–1092 + [29] index. Cornhill, London: J. & A. Arch.Google Scholar
  19. Eames, F.E. 1957. Eocene Mollusca from Nigeria, a revision. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 3(2): 25–70.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer, P. 1884. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique ou Histoire naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossils 7: 609–688.Google Scholar
  21. Gill, T. 1870. On the Pterocerae of Lamarck, and their mutual relations. American Journal of Conchology 5: 120–139.Google Scholar
  22. Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema naturae per regna tria naturae. Editio decima tertia. v. 1; Vermes: 3021–3910.Google Scholar
  23. Grecchi, G. 1978. Problems connected with the recorded occurrence of some Mollusks of Indo-Pacific affinity in the Pliocene of the Mediterranean area. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 84: 797–812.Google Scholar
  24. Harzhauser, M. 2007. Oligocene and Aquitanian Gastropod Faunas from the Sultanate of Oman and their biogeographic implications for the early western Indo-Pacific. Palaeontographica 280: 75–121.Google Scholar
  25. Harzhauser, M. 2009. Aquitanian gastropods of coastal Tanzania and their biogeographic implications for the early western Indo-Pacific. Palaeontographica 289: 123–156.Google Scholar
  26. Harzhauser, M., and G.C. Kronenberg. 2008. A note on Strombus coronatus Defrance, 1827 and Strombus coronatus Röding, 1798 (Mollusca: Gastropoda). The Veliger 50(2): 120–128.Google Scholar
  27. Harzhauser, M., and W.E. Piller. 2007. Benchmark data of a changing sea—Palaeogeography, Palaeobiogeography and events in the Central Paratethys during the Miocene. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 253: 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harzhauser, M., W.E. Piller, and F.F. Steininger. 2002. Circum-Mediterranean Oligo-Miocene biogeographic evolution—the gastropods’ point of view. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 183: 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harzhauser, M., O. Mandic, and M. Zuschin. 2003. Changes in Paratethyan marine molluscs at the Early/Middle Miocene transition—diversity, paleogeography and paleoclimate. Acta Geologica Polonica 53: 323–339.Google Scholar
  30. Harzhauser, M., A. Kroh, O. Mandic, W.E. Piller, U.B. Göhlich, M. Reuter, and B. Berning. 2007. Biogeographic responses to geodynamics: A key study all around the Oligo-Miocene Tethyan Seaway. Journal of Comparative Zoology 246: 241–256.Google Scholar
  31. Harzhauser, M., M. Reuter, W.E. Piller, B. Berning, A. Kroh, and O. Mandic. 2009. Oligocene and Early Miocene gastropods from Kutch (NW-India) document an early biogeographic switch from Western Tethys to Indo-Pacific. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 83: 333–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hiden, H. 2006. Der Vulkan von Weitendorf. Hengist 2006(2): 4–9.Google Scholar
  33. Hoek Ostende, L.W. van den, J. Leloux, F.P. Wesselingh, and C.F. Winkler Prins. 2002. Cenozoic Molluscan types from Java (Indonesia) in the Martin Collection (Division of Cenozoic Mollusca), National Museum of Natural History, Leiden. NNM Technical Bulletin 5: 1–130.Google Scholar
  34. Hoernes, R., and M. Auinger. 1884. Die Gastropoden der Meeresablagerungen der ersten und zweiten Miozänen Mediterranstufe in der österreichischen-ungarischen Monarchie. Abhandlungen der k.k. geologischen Reichsanstalt 12: 153–192.Google Scholar
  35. Ilyina, L.B. 1993. Handbook for identification of marine Middle Miocene gastropods of Southwestern Eurasia [in Russian]. Trudy Paleontologičeskogo Instituta 255: 1–149.Google Scholar
  36. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. Ed. 4, i-xxix + 1–306. London, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Iredale, T. 1921. Molluscan nomenclatural problems and solutions. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London 14: 198–208.Google Scholar
  38. Jousseaume, F. 1886. Coquilles marines des cotes d’Abyssinie et de Zanzibar, recueilis par M. Raffray en 1873 et en 1874. Le Naturaliste Série 1(3): 220–222.Google Scholar
  39. Jung, P., and A. Heitz. 2001. The subgenus Lentigo (Gastropoda: Strombidae) in tropical America, fossil and living. The Veliger 44: 20–53.Google Scholar
  40. Klein, J.T. 1753. Tentamen methodi ostracologicae: sive Dispositio naturalis cochlidum et concharum in suas classes, genera et species, iconibus singulorum generum aeri incisis illustrata; accedit lucubratiuncula de formatione, cremento et coloribus tum commentariolum in locum Plinii Hist. nat. libri. IX. cap. XXXIII. de concharum differntiis. Denique sciagraphia methodi ad genus serpentium ordinate digerendum. [8], 1–177, [27], pls. 1–102, [8], 1–44, 1–16, [1] Lugduni Batavorum.Google Scholar
  41. Kojumdigieva, E., and B. Strachimirov. 1960. Tortonien. Lés fossiles de Bulgarie. Academie des Sciences de Bulgarie 7: 1–320. (in Bulgarian).Google Scholar
  42. Kronenberg, G.C. 1998. Revision of Euprotomus Gill, 1870. 1. The systematic position of Strombus listeri Gray, 1852 (Gastropoda Prosobranchia: Strombidae). Vita Marina 45(3–4): 1–6.Google Scholar
  43. Kronenberg, G.C. 1999. Revision of Euprotomus Gill, 1870. 2. On the identity of Strombus hirasei Kuroda, 1942 (Gastropoda Prosobranchia: Strombidae). The Festivus 31(6): 63–67.Google Scholar
  44. Kronenberg, G.C. 2002a. Addendum to a revision of Euprotomus Gill, 1870. 2a. On the identity of Strombus hirasei Kuroda, 1942 (Gastropoda Prosobranchia: Strombidae). The Festivus 34(9): 110.Google Scholar
  45. Kronenberg, G.C. 2002b. Revision of Euprotomus Gill, 1870. 3. Description of Euprotomus aurora spec. nov. from the Indian Ocean (Gastropoda, Strombidae). Vita Malacologica 1: 55–60.Google Scholar
  46. Kronenberg, G.C. 2009. A note on Bandel’s 2007 review of the classification and phylogeny of the Strombidae (Caenogastropoda). Basteria 73(1–3): 65–67.Google Scholar
  47. Kronenberg, G.C., U. Wieneke, and H. Stoutjesdijk. 2010/2011. Superfamily Stromboidea. World Register of Marine Species. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=23123 [Submitted 2010, partially published 2010/2011, not complete yet]. Last accessed: 4 Aug 2011.
  48. Kronenberg, G.C., and H.G. Lee. 2007. Genera of American strombid gastropods (Gastropoda: Strombidae) and remarks on their phylogeny. The Veliger 49(4): 256–264.Google Scholar
  49. Ladd, H.S. 1972. Cenozoic fossil mollusks from western Pacific islands; Gastropods (Turritellidae through Strombidae). Geological Survey Professional Paper 532: 1–79.Google Scholar
  50. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de Monet de, 1816. Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois règnes de la nature… Vingttroisième partie. Mollusques et polypes divers. Vol. 1: Liste des objets représentés dans les planches de cette livraison, 16 pp, pls. 1–95; Vol. 2: pls. 96–314; Vol. 3: pls. 391–488 (incl. 431bis and 431bis*), Paris, Mme Veuve Agasse.Google Scholar
  51. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de Monet de, 1822. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, présentant des charactères généraux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des pricipales espèces qui s’y rapportent, précédée 7: 1–711, Paris.Google Scholar
  52. Landau, B.M., and C.M. da Silva. 2010. Early Pliocene gastropods of Cubagua, Venezuela: taxonomy, palaeobiogeography and ecostratigraphy. Palaeontos 19: 1–221.Google Scholar
  53. Latal, C., W.E. Piller, and M. Harzhauser. 2005. Shifts in oxygen and carbon isotope signals in marine molluscs from the Central Paratethys (Europe) around the Lower/Middle Miocene transition. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 231: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Latiolais, J.M. 2003. The phylogenetic underpinnings for spatial patterns ofmorphological disparity: analyses using strombid gastropods. Unpublished thesis. i–iv, 1–34, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  55. Latiolais, J.M., M.S. Taylor, K. Roy, and M.E. Hellberg. 2006. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of strombid gastropod morphological diversity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41: 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lightfoot, J. 1786. A catalogue of the Portland Museum, lately the property of the Duchess Dowager of Portland deceased Which wil… i–viii, 1–194, London.Google Scholar
  57. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, per Regna tria Naturae secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Ed. 10 1: 1–823, Holmiae.Google Scholar
  58. Lister, M. 1685–1692. Historiae sive synopsis methodicae Conchyliorum quorum omnium picturae. Issued in 4 books, total 8 p. and 494 leaves of plates. London.Google Scholar
  59. Lozouet, P., and P. Maestrati. 1986. Le Strombus granulatus Swainson, 1822 une relique Mesogeenne. Xenophora, Bulletin de l’Association Francaise de Conchyliologie 31: 11–15.Google Scholar
  60. Mandic, O., M. Harzhauser, J. Schlaf, W.E. Piller, F. Schuster, U. Wielandt-Schuster, J.H. Nebelsick, A. Kroh, F. Rögl, and P. Bassant. 2004. Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction of an Epicontinental Flooding - Burdigalian (Early Miocene) of the Mut Basin (Southern Turkey). Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 248: 57–92.Google Scholar
  61. Moolenbeek, R.G., and H. Dekker. 1993. On the identity of Strombus decorus and Strombus persicus, with the description of Strombus decorus masirensis n. ssp. and a note on Strombus fasciatus. Vita Marina 42(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
  62. Mörch, O.A.L. 1852. Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso d’Aguirra & Gadea Comes de Yoldi, Regis danae cubiculariorum princeps, ordinis dannebrogici in prima classe & ordinis Caroli Tertii Eques (…) fasciculus primus. Cephalophora (…). 1-172, Hafniae, Ludovicus Klein.Google Scholar
  63. Mourik, A.A., H.A. Abels, F.J. Hilgen, A. Di Stefano, and W.J. Zachariasse. 2011. Improved astronomical age constraints for the middle Miocene climate transition based on high-resolution stable isotope records from the central Mediterranean Maltese Islands. Paleoceanography 26: PA1210. doi:10.1029/2010PA001981.
  64. Newton, R.B. 1905. Eocene Shells from Nigeria. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Serie 7(15): 83–91.Google Scholar
  65. Newton, R.B. 1922. Eocene Mollusca from Nigeria. Geological Survey of Nigeria Bulletin 3: 1–114.Google Scholar
  66. Nikolov, P.I. 1993. Some molluscs from the Badenian (middle Miocene) west of Pleven (Central northern Bulgaria). I. Gastropoda: orders Archaeogastropoda and Mesogastropoda. Geologica Balcanica 23(6): 61–72.Google Scholar
  67. Popov, S.V., F. Rögl, A.Y. Rozanov, F.F. Steininger, I.G. Shcherba, and M. Kováč. 2004. Lithological-Paleogeographic maps of Paratethys. 10 Maps Late Eocene to Pliocene. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 250: 1–46.Google Scholar
  68. Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature ou tableau d’universet des corps organisés. [portrait] [title page] [dedication] [1] 5–224, incl. additions and corrections. Jean Barravecchia, Palermo.Google Scholar
  69. Röding, P.F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum sive catalogus cimeliorum e tribus regnis naturae que olim collegerat Joa. Fried Bolten, M.D.p.d. per XL annos proto physicus Hamburgensis. Pars Secunda continens Conchylia sive Testacea univalvia, bivalvia & multivalvia. I-VIII, 1–199, Hamburg, Johan. Christi. Trappii. [reprint American Malacological Union, 1986].Google Scholar
  70. Rögl, F. 1998. Palaeogeographic Considerations for Mediterranean and Paratethys Seaways (Oligocene to Miocene). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 99A: 279–310.Google Scholar
  71. Rögl, F., W. Antl-Weiser, F. Brandstätter, M.D. Dermitzakis, W. Papesch, W.E. Piller, O. Schultz, N.K. Symeonidis, M.V. Triant Aphyllou, and V. Tsapralis. 1997. Late Pleistocene marine cycles in Corfu. Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques 37: 663–767.Google Scholar
  72. Rumphius, G.E. 1705. D’Amboinsche rariteirkamer, Behelzende eene Beschryvinge van allerhande zoo weeke als harde schaaldieren, te weeten Krabben, Kreeften, en diergelyke Zeedieren, alsmede allerhande Hoorntjes en Schulpen, die men in d’Amboinsche Zee vindt: Daar beneven zimmige Mineraalen, Gesteenten, en soorten van Aarde, die in d’Amboinsche, en zommige omleggende Eilanden. Verdeelt in drie boeken, En met nodige Printverbeeldingen, alle naar het leven getekent, voorzien. Beschreven door (…). i-xxviii, 1–340 [43], pls 1–60, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  73. Sacco, F. 1893. I Molluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte e della Liguria. Parte XIV. (Strombidae, Terebellidae, Chenopidae ed Halidae). Memoire della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 14: 1–38.Google Scholar
  74. Shevenell, A.E., J.P. Kennett, and D.W. Lea. 2004. Middle Miocene Southern Ocean cooling and Antarctic cryosphere expansion. Science 305: 1766–1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Strausz, L. 1966. Die Miozän-Mediterranen Gastropoden Ungarns, 1–692. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  76. Swainson, W. 1821. Exotic Conchology; or figures and descriptions of rare, beautiful, or undescribed shells, drawn on stone from the most selected specimens; the descriptions systematically arranged on the principles of mm. Cuvier and De Lamarck, with references to the Linnaean calassification (…). Vol. 1 [12] + 16 pls. London.Google Scholar
  77. Swainson, W. 1822. Appendix. Description of several new shells, and remarks on others, contained in the collection of the late Mrs. Bligh. [in] A catalogue of the rare and valuable shells, which formed the celebrated collection of the late Mrs. Bligh 20 pp. London.Google Scholar
  78. Trew, A. 1992. Henry and Arthur Adams’s new molluscan names, 1–63. Wales, UK: National Museum of Cardiff.Google Scholar
  79. Tröndlé, J., and B. Salvat. 2010. La thanatocénose du lagon de l’atoll Niau (Polynésie française) avec la description d’une nouvelle espèce de Strombus (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Strombidae). Zoosystema 32: 613–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tryon, G.W. 1885. Family Strombidae. Manual of Conchology 2(7): 99–152, pls 1–12.Google Scholar
  81. Vredenburg, E. 1925. Description of Mollusca from the Post—Eocene Tertiary formations of North - Western India. 1. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India 50: 1–350.Google Scholar
  82. Williams, S.T., and T.F. Duda. 2008. Did tectonic activity stimulate speciation in the Oligo-Miocene Indo-West Pacific? Evolution 62: 1618–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups. 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 ma to present. Science 292: 686–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zazo, C., J.L. Goy, and E. Aguierre. 1984. Did Strombus survive the last interglacial in the western Mediterranean Sea? Mediterranea, seria Geologica 3: 131–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NCBNaturalisLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Geological-Paleontological DepartmentNatural History Museum ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations