Sarika resplendens (Philippi, 1846)
“The habitat of the type was Mergui. Mr. Edgar A. Smith, who has very kindly examined this specimen and compared it with examples in the British Museum, writes me “we have a specimen from King Island, Mergui Archipelago (named by Dr. von Martens as resplendens) which is exactly like your example only a triffle smaller, that is to say less fully grown.” (Collinge, 1902)
“This transparent horny shell has very much the appearance of a Vitrina. The upper part of the whorls is faintly plicately striated next the suture.” (Reeve, 1854)
Godwin-Austen (1889) commented on Reeve (1854) – “The form here represented with the high spire is not at all like the typical species I have seen; and, from the habitat Burmah, it is evidently some other species, not unlike those examples of M. atricolor from Upper Burmah named resplendens by Nevill.”
“Macrochlamys subcornea, Pfeiffer, P. Z. S. 1861, p. 20; Mon. Hel. vol. V. p. 103; Mal. Blat. 1860, p. 232, from Siam (Mouhot, coll. Cuming), is a much closer-wound shell than any I possess; and I doubt the identification by Hanley of one of Theobald's shells from Phie Than, figured in Conch. Ind. pi. exlix. figs. 2, 3, and which I believe is a young specimen of resplendens.” (Godwin-Austen, 1889)
Pfeiffer (1848) descriptions on Helix resplendens – “T. subperforata, depressa, glaberrima, lucida, tenuis, pellucida, lutescenti-cornea; spira vix prominula; anfr. 6 ½ convexiusculi, lente accrescentes, ultimus regulariter auctus, basi convexiusculus, medio profunde impressus; aperture fere verticalis, depressa, lata, lunaris; perist. simplex, acutum, margine columellari peroblique descendente, in centro baseos brevissime reflexo.”
Reeve (1854) descriptions on Helix resplendens – “Shell slightly umbilicated, depressed, very smooth, shining, thin, pellucid, yellowish-horny; spire but little prominent; whorls six to seven, rather convex, increasing slowly, the last regularly enlarged, convex at the base, deeply impressed in the middle; aperture almost vertical, depressed, broad, lunar: lip simple, acute, columellar margin descending very obliquely.”
Godwin-Austen, H. H. (1889) descriptions on Macrochlamys? resplendens – “Shell subperforate, very depressedly conoid, shining, thin, smooth; colour ochraceous, greyer below; spire flatly conoid; whorls 6½, closely wound and increasing very gradually and evenly; aperture nearly vertical, lunate; peristome thin, acute; columellar margin oblique and not reflected until close to the umbilicus, and then but slightly so.”
Blanford & Godwin-Austen (1908) descriptions on Sarika resplendens – “Shell perforate, depressed, smooth, polished throughout, thin, pale, yellowish tawny, without longitudinal sculpture; spire very low, suture well impressed; whorls 7, convex, regularly increasing, the last rounded at the periphery and convex, slightly flattened beneath, deeply impressed in the middle; aperture nearly vertical, broadly lunate; peristome thin, almost straight, basal margin faintly arcuate, columellar oblique, briefly reflected above.”
Godwin-Austen, H. H. (1889) descriptions on Macrochlamys resplendens from Cambodia – “Shell similar to Mergui specimen in form, more discoid; colour umber-brown, paler grey below; spire very flat, not so high; suture well impressed; whorls 6. This shell is very close to the last, but smaller and flatter above and below, and not so tumid”
Godwin-Austen, H. H. (1889) descriptions on Macrochlamys resplendens from Siam – “Shell similar to Mergui specimen, but smaller and body-whorl less tumid; colour very pale umber-brown, with a grey tinge below; whorls 5.”
“In the animal both shell-lobes are well developed, as in Macrochlamys indica. Neck-lobes small. There is a long flagellum-like kale-sac, a long spermatheca, and a large dart-sac or amatorial organ. The formula for the radula is: 42 . 2 . 10 . 1 . 10 . 2 . 42 (54 . 1 . 54). [The jaw has no central projection.] [External characters, such as the shell-lobes present, led me in 1898 (Mol. Ind.) to place this species in Macrochlamys, but it differs in many respects from the typical Indian species of that genus. Further material received since has shown the internal anatomy to be very different. The penis-sheath enlarges upwards from the generative aperture to the broad, rather flat, and long retractor muscle. The epiphallus is long, and where it is joined by the vas deferens a kalk-sac nearly as long is given ofl^. Within the length of the epiphallus in this specimen a spermatophore was in an advanced stage of development, the sac of which is indicated by the swelling close to the vas deferens. The spermatheca is very long, a narrow tube swelling into an elongate, pear-shaped, thin-walled sac. This contained a single perfectly formed spermatophore. The amatorial organ is very large and thickened, the free end terminating in a very blunt globose knob. The rest of the generative organs do not call for any special mention. The spermatophore differs in detail from any I have yet been fortunate to come across (vide spermatheca, tig. 84, B); the flume is very long, quite free of spines on the side, 2 or 3 large ones only at the base of the capsule, which is elongately oval, with very transparent sides and with the usual cap-like terminal end. It is thus on the mould of spermatophores of species of the genera Girasia and Austenia &c., but shows very interesting variation in minor detail, supporting the conclusion I have arrived at, that this species resplendens cannot be retained in Macrochlamys, but forms a good and distinct genus. The animals of resplendens and of the Siamese species S.pumicata, Morelet, are much nearer that of Xesta type citrina, but the conchological differences are very great. The closely-wound depressed shell of resplendens and its allies presents characters which cannot be overlooked, and they help considerably in separating this group of the Zonitidae from Macrochlamys on one hand and Xesta on the other.] Hanley's figure (C. I. pi. 51, fig. 4) agrees fairly with Pfeiffer's and would appear to be some other species. Reeve's figure (Conch. Ic. no. 430) is something different. Many different shells are found in various collections under this name. The description above is from a Mergui specimen in Col. Godwin-Austen's Collection.” (Blanford & Godwin-Austen, 1908)
Helix resplendens – “Diam. maj. 19, min. 16 ½, alt. 9 mill.” (Pfeiffer, 1848); “Three very fine specimens, the largest of which measures 23 mm. max.” (Collinge, 1903); Macrochlamys? resplendens – “Size: maj. Diam. 25.5, min. 23.0; alt. axis 10.0, body-whorl 8.0 mm” (Godwin-Austen, 1883); Macrochlamys resplendens from Cambodia – “Size: maj. Diam. 21.8, min. 18.8; alt. axis 8.0, body-whorl 6.8 mm.” (Godwin-Austen, 1889); Macrochlamys resplendens from Siam – “Size: maj. Diam. 19.0, min. 17.0; alt. axis 7.5, body-whorl 6.5 mm.” (Godwin-Austen, 1889); Sarika resplendens – “Major diam. 25 ½, min. 23 ½, height 12 mm.” (Blanford & Godwin-Austen, 1908)
Type locality – “Mergui imperii birmani” (Phillipi, 1846)
Other localities – “Cambodia” leg. H. Adams (Godwin-Austen, 1889); “Siam” leg. H. Adams (Godwin-Austen, 1889); “Salanga” (Martens, 1883); “Zediwon, near Mergui, Sullivan island, King island” (Martens, 1889); “Prang, on the Malay Peninsula.” Leg. W. L. Abbott (Dall, 1897); “Penang” (Collinge, 1902); “Bukit Besar, Nawngchik, 3000 feet.” (Collinge, 1903)
Distributions – “Mergui Archipelago; also Siam and Cambodia” (Blanford & Godwin-Austen, 1908)
Predators of Macrochlamys resplendens – “Malaysian wood rat, Rattus tiomanicus (Miller); Pacific rat, Rattus exulans (Peale); Rice field rat, Rattus argentiventer (Robinson & Kloss).” (Limm, 1966)