It could belong the genus Strepsidura.

I agree, it looks like Strepsidura turgida

Yes, I'm agree. Strepsidura Swainson, 1840.

I agree too that it's a Strepsidura, but probably not turgida.

it's a Strepsidura

turgida SOLANDER in BRANDER, 1766 is only Eocene

Finally we are all ok for the genus identification and it is a very nice specimen from the Maastrichtian from India, congratulations for this discovery! Didier

Hi, the species that looks most similar to me is Pyrifusus crassus Sohl 1964, on his pl. 24, figs. 12, 16, 17, from the Maastrichtian of the Ripley Formation, US Gulf Coast. Here is the full reference:

SOHL, N. F. 1964. Neogastropoda, Opisthobranchia and Basommatophora from the Ripley, Owl Creek and Prairie Bluff Formations. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 331:153-334.

I think you can download the pdf for free at the USGS warehouse website; it might take a little searching, though.

Cheers, Steffen

It is Strepsidura-like but I wouldn't want to risk an identification based on a single low-magnification image. Do you have images of different views (back, side, spire) and close-up images too?

Jon is right (more details will be helpful). But I am not convinced that Pyrifusus shares more similarities with the Maastrichtian Indian spm than with Strepsidura. Note also that Strepsidura is recorded in the Danian of Pakistan (Kadhro Formation, Cardita beaumonti beds) by Douvillé.

Thanks to all for this interesting discussion of systematics.

Best

Didier

I agree with Didier and I will go one step further. I think we need to talk about taxonomy and systematics here, namely shared characters rather than mere resemblances that might be plesiomorphic or convergent. I cannot see enough detail from that single picture to conclude anything more than the shell is "Strepsidura-like". I lay down a challenge: Can anyone tell me what characters/shell features visible in the image allow us to definitively identify this as a Strepsidura or a Pyrifusus?

Thank you all for your helpful suggestions.

Hi! Ask about this Thomas Cejka from Institute of Zoology - Slovak Academy of Science! (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomas_Cejka2)

Your species resembles Pyropsis nodifera from Trichinopoly Formation but is not the same, and also Napulus from the Ripley Formation that has similarly rounded whorls (see Sohl 1964). Bandel 2012 placed similar species in the Moreidae- Pyropsinae, but classification also depends on Protoconch-shape.. Your species was not described in Bandel 2000, but resembles Pyropsis and could be considered to belong to that genus- see Sohl.. 

I suppose that the answer to my question is "No". And we wonder why morphology is going out of fashion as part of the systematic endeavour!

can you send another view?