Iredale. — Suter's " Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca." 419 



in understanding bettor the results stated. The references given can be 

 quoted freely, as I have carefully verified each one myself. 



Order Polyphacophora. 

 This order has been my chief interest ever since I commenced the study 

 of molluscs. I hope to incorporate all the results of my investigations in 

 a monograph of the Australasian forms. I have, to this end, contributed to 

 the Proceedings of the Malacological Society (London) a series of articles 

 dealing with nomenclatural problems, and also indicating alterations neces- 

 sary in classification. I herewith give a summary as affecting the names 

 and status of the New Zealand genera and species as I understand them at 

 present. In the " Additions and Emendations," pp. 1077-82, Suter has 

 included some of my earlier notes, so that when considering this group 

 these must be reckoned with. On p. 1082 Suter lias given a synopsis of 

 Thiele's classification of these molluscs, a scheme which I generally approve 

 of. I would, nevertheless, indicate that Thiele's arrangement opens up a 

 large field for study, as, though radular characters form the basis of his 

 grouping, shell features confirm it. 



Ischnochiton contractus (Reeve, 1847). [P. 8.]* 

 I have not seen Suter's immature specimen, but I doubt if it should be 

 referred to this species. Mr. W. L. May has sent me specimens of three 

 distinct species which have been confused by Tasnianian collectors under 

 that species-name. 



Ischnochiton campbelli (Filhol, 1880). [P. 9.] 



On p. 1077 Suter comments upon my identification of /. fulvus Suter, 

 1905, and I. parkeri Suter, 1897, with the earlier Tonicia gryei, Filhol, 

 1880, and rejects the last-named, as Filhol's description was unaccompanied 

 by a figure ; but Mr. Suter's rejection cannot be maintained. He also differs 

 from me in still considering his own two names as representing distinct 

 species. I have therefore once more re-examined the shells, of which I 

 have long series, and cannot see any differentiating features. Suter only 

 gives " shape and divergence," and in this genus these characters are un- 

 stable. Further study of these shells has convinced me that the correct 

 name to be used is as above, based on Lepidopleurus campbelli Filhol (Comptes 

 Rendus Sci. Paris, vol. xci, p. 1095, 1880: Campbell Island). When I 

 studied the types of the French authors, by permission of the Curator of 

 the Paris Museum, the types of this species had been mislaid. As the 

 types of Tonicia gryei Filhol were hidden under the later name Lepidopleurus 

 melanterus Rochebrune, I conclude that the tube so labelled also contained 

 the shells described by Filhol as L. campbelli. The description is quite 

 good — indeed, more applicable in detail than that of Tonicia gryei, which 

 follows it. Though no figure was offered, this is no reason for dismissing 

 Filhol's name, and I therefore reinstate it as above. 



I have seen specimens from South Australia named /. fulvus by Dr. 

 Torr, but these are at once recognized as distinct by examination of the 

 girdle-scales. The few deep grooves on the scales of /. campbelli Filhol 

 are quite characteristic. 



* The references in square brackets— e.gr., [P. 8] — give the page of the " Manual of 

 the New Zealand Mollusca" referred to, but the names at the head of the paragraphs 

 in this paper are not always these used by Mr. Suter. 



14* 



