The genus Vaceuchelus is used here to group the small white Chilodontids, usually with a pronounced reticulate sculpture, that are closely related to Herpetopoma, Euchelus and Danilia. In the literature, few species are mentioned. We believe that, apart from the species mentioned below, belong to Vaceuchelus, but further study is necessary in order to determine their validity and/or correct assignment: ampullus (Tate, 1893) aiwilatus (Pease, 1868) cavernosus (Sowerby) delpretei (Caramagna, 1888), scrobiculatus (Souvcrbie in Souvcrbie & Montrouzier, 1866) favosus (Melvill&Standen, 1896), natalensis (E.A. Smith, 1906) semilugubris (Deshayes, 1863)

The shell of Vaceuchelus species is small (length <10 mm), predominantly white and has a cancellate or foveolate sculpture. The aperture lacks a well-developed, peg-like tooth and U-shaped notch at the base of the columella, and may or may not possess denticles inside the outer lip. Iredale (1929) proposed the genus for Euchelus angulatus Pease, 1868 from the Tua-motu Archipelago, noting that it typified a large series of taxa which differed from more typical Euchelus-like species primarily in lacking a tooth at the base of the columella. It is certainly true that Vaceuchelus species lack the distinctive basal columella dentition of some chilodontid genera, but a number of species still retain some form of apertural dentition. Two subgroupings are evident, namely those which possess denticles inside the outer lip and those that do not. The type species, together with V foveolatus (A. Adams, 1853), V. scrobiculatus (Souverbie in Souverbie & Montrouzier, 1866) and V. semilugubris (Deshayes, 1863) possess labral denticles, whilst others, e.g. V cavernosus (Sowerby, 1905), K clathratus (A. Adams, 1853), V. favosus (Melvill & Standen, 1896), V. gemmula (Turton, 1932), V. jayorum sp. n. and V. natalensis (Smith, 1906), seem to lack all traces of apertural dentition.
To provide a new genus-rank name for such denticle-less taxa would be premature at this stage, since the distinction is based on one character only and, furthermore, there are additional taxa, e.g. V. cretaceus , which present a third, somewhat intermediate facies. Until such time as the data set available allows a more meaningful assessment, I employ Vaceuchelus in its widest sense. Differences in operculum form and protoconch morphology, such as the presence or absence of a sinusigera lip, are also evident, but information is available for too few taxa.
V. angulatus is almost certainly a junior synonym of V. foveolatus (A. Adams, 1853), also from the Tuamotu Archipelago (Pilsbry 1890 in 1889-90). The holotype of the former is somewhat worn, but appears to be nothing more than an elevated and perhaps abnormal example of V. foveolatus in which the upper spiral cord is weakly developed.

The main features for Vaceuchelus are a small size (H < 10 mm), a whitish colour and a rough, cancellate or foveolate sculpture. Some species have labral denticles inside the outer lip of the aperture, others lack these denticles. Especially, Herbert (2012) pointed out as the main difference between Herpetopoma and Vaceuchelus genera the presence {Herpetopoma) or the lack (Vaceuchelus) of a peg-like tooth coupled with a U-shaped notch on the basal lip near the columella.