It seems peculiar for WoRMS to include Sorbeoconcha yet not include Hypsogastropoda. Both were included as equivalent-rank clades by Bouchet & Rocroi (2005). Bouchet et al. (2017), the most recent revision, suggests it may be a subcohort of Sorbeoconcha. Numerous other cohort and subcohort groupings used by these classifications are already in use on WoRMS and iNaturalist.

Hypogastropoda should include the following taxa: Lyocyclidae (no superfamily assignment), Abyssochrysoidea, Capuloidea, Cingulopsoidea, Epitonioidea, Hipponicoidea, Littorinoidea, Naticoidea, Pterotracheoidea, Triphoroidea, and Vermetoidea.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322236112_Revised_Classification_Nomenclator_and_Typification_of_Gastropod_and_Monoplacophoran_Families

@loarie @bobby23 — I'm still working on transcribing the 2005 taxonomy at the above link. I'm attempting to sort out the differences, but WoRMS's Caenogastropoda currently doesn't align with anything published in the literature as it stands.

WoRMS fairly recently removed Sorbeoconcha from synonymy with Caenogastropoda but didn't finish populating it. I'm still running through their pages and the revisions in the literature to get a better handle on how thoroughly this affects Caenogastropoda (but it appears to be rather extensive - I've flagged notes on current placement on a number of taxa).

As an additional note, several taxa are invalid in the 2005 revision but valid in the 2017 revision, and vice versa. WoRMS currently seems to have a bit of a mix. I figure there can be some discussion as to which reference to follow while I'm getting my comparison finished up (yes, it'll be in 2-col format; yes, I probably spent way too long formatting the outline to display right in HTML 5 😅).

There are really enough issues with how they sort Sorbeoconcha that I would have to very flatly say that it's not usable as-is (some workarounds might be easier than others). Sorbeoconcha is defined to include a majority of [unassigned] Caenogastropoda , Littorinimorpha, and Neogastropoda - all of which currently are grafted directly to Caenogastropoda and excluded from Sorbeoconcha in WoRMS/MB' current system. Most legitimate descendants (96%: 205 out of 214 families based on the literature; 194 out of 201 for taxa in WoRMS) aren't properly grafted under it. In fact, this mis-grafting erroneously resulted in iNat's taxonomy temporarily denoting Sorbeoconcha as extinct (while those members grafted in WoRMS are extinct members, a giant chunk of its descendant taxa defined throughout the literature are extant). Most other gastropod subclasses seem to follow a lot closer to the literature insofar as marine species. This same issue with disjointed grafting pops up in a few other places between subclass and family as well.

The last edit (to Sorbeoconcha and a few descendants) was in 2018, but other pages haven't been amended since 2015, 2013, or even 2010 (incidentally, that edit caused a lot of the trouble here). I recall they had previously (either a 2010 or 2009 edit) listed Sorbeoconcha as an alternative representation for Caenogastropoda (thereby omitting taxa between subclass and order).

I agree with @loarie. WoRMS is imperfect, but they are highly receptive to feedback. Contacting them in the past has been productive.

any updates on this? If so please reopen