38 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGES. 



Ghitonellus leevis (?), Lamarck, Hist. Nat. Arum. s. Vert., 1819 (ed. 1), vol. vi. p. 317; Elainville, 



1825 (loc. cit.), p. 603, pi. lxxxvii. fig. 5 ; Desires in Lamarck, 1836 (loc. cit.), 



p. 481 ; Reeve, Conch. Syst., 1842, pL cxxxv. fig. 2 (not of Reeve, Conch. 



Icon., 1847, fig. 1, which is Choneplax strigatus, Sow.). 



„ fasciatus, Reeve, ConcL Syst., 1842, vol. ii. pi. cxxxv. figs. 3, 4 (not fig. 5, which is 



Chitonellus oculatus). 

 ,, „ Reeve, Conch. Icon., 1847, fig. 2 a, b. 



Not Ghitonellus larvceformis, Reeve, Conch. Icon., fig. 3, which is Ghitonellus burroioi; Smith, Report 



Zool. Collect, of H.M.S. "Alert," 1884, p. 85. 

 Ghitonellus fasciatus, Gould, U.S. Explor. Exped., 1852, vol. xii. p. 333; Atlas, pi. xxviii. figs. 429, 429a. 

 Chiton eruciformis, Sowerhy, Genera Recent and Fossil Shells, 1820-1825, No. 12, pi. cxxxix. fig. 5. 

 Crytqplax fasciata + larviformis, Adams, Genera of Recent Mollusca, 185S, vol. i. p. 484; vol. iii. 



pi. lv. figs. 6, 6a. 



Habitat. — Kandavu, Fiji. Shallow water. 



Tongatabu, Friendly Islands (Quoy and Gaimard) ; Dalaquete, Zebu, Philippines 

 (Cuming). 



There can be little doubt that Chitonellus larvceformis, Blainv., is the same species 

 as Chiton fasciatus, Quoy and Gaim., which latter has been copied and redescribed by 

 Lamarck, Eeeve, Gould, and others. E. A. Smith has recently shown that the Chitonellus 

 larvceformis of Eeeve is not that species, but a new one which he named Chitonellus 

 burroioi ; Mrs Gray's figures of Cryptoplax larviformis (sic) 1 are copied from Blainville, 

 and those of Cryptoplax fasciatus" from Quoy and Gaimard, and J. E. Gray himself 3 

 referred to these as separate species. Chitonellus leevis, Lam., is believed by E. A. Smith 

 to be this species. No mention is made of tufts of spines (" pores "). Blainville's figure 

 in the " Manuel " of Chitonellus larvaeformis is very rough, and there is no indication of the 

 transverse bands on the girdle, but he figured the tufts, and being aware of their existence 

 in one form, he might be expected to look out for them in the other, hence his silence on 

 that point is worthy of note. Deshayes, in the second edition of Lamarck's work, admits 

 Blainville's figure as a representation of Chitonellus leevis, and he ignores the pores. What- 

 ever this species may prove to be, Eeeve 4 is clearly in error in referring Chiton strigatus, 

 Sow., to it; in the Conch. Syst. 5 he names Sowerby's species Chitonellus strigatus. Dall G 

 refers to this as the type species of the genus Choneplax of Carpenter. E. A. Smith 

 is undoubtedly correct in regarding Chiton eruciformis, Sow., as a synonym of this 

 species. Sowerby did not believe in the generic distinction of Chitonellus from Cliiton, 

 so he re-named what he believed to be Chitonellus leevis, Lam., as Chiton eruciformis, as, 

 though he does not say so, the specific name was pre-occupied {Chiton leevis, Penn.). This 

 figure of the detached valves is copied in Eeeve's Conch. Syst., where it is referred back 

 to Chitonellus leevis, Lam. 



1 Figures of Molluscous Animals, 1859, vol. ii. pi. clxxxix. figs. 4, 4a. 2 Ibid., figs. 5, 5a. 



3 Guide to the Systematic Distribution of Moll, in the British Museum, 1857, p. 187. 



4 Conch. Icon., fig. 1. 5 PI. cxxxv. fig. 6. 6 Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1881, p. 288. 



