﻿AMPiiiNEtJftA 
  261 
  

  

  description 
  (1857) 
  Carpenter 
  reported 
  the 
  species 
  from 
  San 
  Diego. 
  Later 
  he 
  listed 
  it 
  from 
  

   the 
  same 
  area, 
  Santa 
  Barbara 
  group 
  of 
  islands, 
  and 
  Lower 
  California. 
  

  

  Distribution. 
  — 
  Recent. 
  Mazatlan, 
  Mexico 
  (type) 
  ; 
  Monterey, 
  California 
  i^s 
  to 
  Mazatlan, 
  

   Mexico 
  (Dall). 
  Pleistocene. 
  California 
  (Arnold; 
  Grant 
  and 
  Gale; 
  Willett, 
  1937; 
  Woodring, 
  

   Branilette, 
  and 
  Kew) 
  Mexico 
  (Jordan, 
  1926) 
  

  

  Class 
  AMPHINEURA 
  

  

  Because 
  Carpenter 
  died 
  before 
  his 
  large 
  chiton 
  monograph 
  was 
  completed, 
  various 
  manu- 
  

   script 
  names 
  of 
  that 
  group 
  crept 
  into 
  literature. 
  Many 
  were 
  first 
  introduced 
  by 
  Dall 
  without 
  

   proper 
  diagnoses 
  and 
  in 
  some 
  cases 
  with 
  a 
  manuscript 
  name 
  of 
  the 
  type 
  species. 
  Some 
  of 
  

   those 
  names 
  are 
  now 
  credited 
  to 
  Carpenter 
  and 
  some 
  to 
  Dall. 
  Technically 
  Carpenter 
  should 
  

   not 
  receive 
  credit, 
  and 
  there 
  is 
  grave 
  doubt 
  that 
  Dall's 
  introduction 
  of 
  the 
  names 
  was 
  ade- 
  

   quate 
  to 
  establish 
  him 
  as 
  author. 
  See 
  discussion 
  under 
  individual 
  species. 
  

  

  Pilsbry 
  carefully 
  and 
  explicitly 
  explained 
  in 
  the 
  "Preface" 
  to 
  the 
  monograph 
  of 
  the 
  Poly- 
  

   placophora 
  (1892, 
  p. 
  iv) 
  that 
  the 
  types 
  were 
  Carpenterian 
  in 
  cases 
  where 
  the 
  new 
  species 
  

   were 
  credited 
  to 
  Carpenter, 
  and 
  tlie 
  descriptions 
  were 
  quoted 
  from 
  his 
  manuscript. 
  Where 
  

   the 
  original 
  description 
  was 
  that 
  of 
  Pilsbry, 
  the 
  types 
  would 
  be 
  those 
  of 
  Pilsbry 
  and 
  would 
  

   be 
  in 
  the 
  Academy 
  of 
  Natural 
  Sciences 
  at 
  Philadelphia. 
  In 
  the 
  explanation 
  of 
  plates 
  (1892, 
  

   p. 
  334), 
  acknowledgment 
  of 
  the 
  work 
  of 
  Foord, 
  Smith, 
  and 
  Emerton, 
  prepared 
  under 
  Car- 
  

   penter's 
  supervision, 
  is 
  a 
  clue 
  to 
  what 
  figures 
  were 
  of 
  specimens 
  in 
  the 
  Carpenter 
  Collection. 
  

   Specimens 
  which 
  were 
  utilized 
  by 
  Pilsbry 
  other 
  than 
  Carpenter 
  individuals 
  are 
  indicated 
  as 
  

   drawn 
  by 
  Pilsbry 
  or 
  Ross. 
  

  

  Following 
  the 
  above 
  rule 
  the 
  writer 
  tried 
  to 
  analyze 
  accordingly 
  the 
  matter 
  of 
  author 
  and 
  

   type 
  credit 
  of 
  the 
  Pilsbry-Carpenter 
  chiton 
  names. 
  In 
  some 
  cases 
  it 
  is 
  difficult 
  to 
  render 
  a 
  

   strict 
  ruling. 
  But 
  in 
  most 
  cases 
  Dr. 
  Pilsbry's 
  distinction 
  is 
  apparent 
  and 
  defined. 
  However, 
  

   in 
  no 
  case 
  where 
  Carpenter 
  ms. 
  names 
  are 
  described 
  for 
  the 
  first 
  time 
  in 
  Pilsbry 
  can 
  Car- 
  

   penter 
  be 
  the 
  sole 
  author 
  as 
  referred 
  in 
  Dall 
  (1921, 
  e.g. 
  p. 
  190, 
  "StenopJax 
  fallax 
  Carpenter, 
  

   1892"). 
  His 
  references 
  are 
  misleading 
  to 
  workers 
  not 
  familiar 
  with 
  the 
  literature 
  and 
  can 
  

   cause 
  unnecessary 
  labor 
  in 
  hunting 
  for 
  such 
  a 
  reference. 
  If 
  Carpenter 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  credited, 
  the 
  

   less 
  confusing 
  is 
  "Carpenter 
  in 
  Pilsbry," 
  or 
  a 
  similar 
  modified 
  form. 
  The 
  confusion 
  of 
  Car- 
  

   penter 
  manuscript 
  names 
  has 
  been 
  continued 
  in 
  recent 
  literature, 
  e.g., 
  "CalUstochiton 
  Car- 
  

   penter, 
  1882" 
  (LaRocque, 
  1953, 
  p. 
  12), 
  "Nnttalina 
  Carpenter, 
  1873" 
  (LaRocque, 
  1953, 
  p. 
  11), 
  

   "Stenoradsia 
  Carpenter, 
  1878," 
  "Placiphorella 
  Carpenter, 
  1878," 
  and 
  "Nnttalina 
  Carpenter, 
  

   1879" 
  (Abbott, 
  1954, 
  p. 
  314). 
  For 
  the 
  status 
  of 
  those 
  manuscript 
  names 
  and 
  others 
  of 
  Car- 
  

   penter, 
  see 
  the 
  list 
  of 
  Carpenter's 
  generic 
  names 
  in 
  this 
  monograph. 
  

  

  Many 
  of 
  the 
  chiton 
  types 
  had 
  been 
  preserved 
  for 
  so 
  long 
  in 
  a 
  curved 
  position 
  

   that 
  the 
  measurement 
  of 
  length 
  implies 
  the 
  dimension 
  of 
  the 
  line 
  which 
  subtends 
  the 
  curva- 
  

   ture 
  of 
  the 
  specimen. 
  

  

  Family 
  Lepidopleuridae 
  

   Genus 
  Leptochiton 
  Gray, 
  1847 
  

  

  I.eptocliiton 
  Gray, 
  1847, 
  Zool. 
  Soc. 
  London, 
  Proc, 
  p. 
  127 
  

  

  Type 
  species 
  by 
  subsequent 
  designation. 
  Gray, 
  Zool. 
  Soc. 
  London, 
  Proc. 
  1847, 
  p. 
  168, 
  Chiton 
  

   cinereus 
  = 
  i^^ 
  "Montagu 
  = 
  Ch. 
  asellus, 
  Lozve 
  Zool. 
  Jour. 
  var. 
  white. 
  Chiton 
  albus," 
  [not 
  

  

  133 
  Smith 
  and 
  Gordon 
  do 
  not 
  report 
  it 
  from 
  Monterey. 
  

  

  134 
  This 
  type 
  designation, 
  specific 
  name 
  without 
  author, 
  cannot 
  be 
  taken 
  without 
  reference 
  

   to 
  the 
  original 
  description 
  or 
  mention 
  of 
  the 
  generic 
  name. 
  A 
  type 
  species 
  designation 
  must 
  be 
  

   one 
  that 
  was 
  listed 
  in 
  the 
  original 
  description. 
  Therefore, 
  the 
  authorship 
  of 
  C. 
  cinereus 
  rests 
  

   upon 
  Gray's 
  mention 
  (p. 
  127) 
  which 
  is 
  as 
  follows: 
  "Leptochiton 
  cinereus. 
  Chiton 
  cinereus, 
  

   Montague 
  [sic] 
  = 
  Ch. 
  asellus, 
  Lowe, 
  Zool. 
  Jour. 
  var. 
  white, 
  Chiton 
  albus." 
  The 
  difficulty 
  

   which 
  has 
  arisen 
  in 
  the 
  pronouncement 
  of 
  the 
  type 
  species 
  of 
  this 
  genus 
  is 
  in 
  the 
  interpreta- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  the 
  above 
  paragraph. 
  If 
  Gray 
  regarded 
  the 
  first 
  mention 
  of 
  L. 
  cinereus 
  as 
  of 
  Linnaeus 
  

   (1767, 
  p. 
  1107) 
  then 
  Linnaeus 
  would 
  be 
  assumed 
  as 
  author 
  (p. 
  168), 
  and 
  C. 
  cinereus 
  L. 
  

   would 
  be 
  the 
  type 
  species 
  of 
  Lepidochiton. 
  The 
  genus 
  would 
  be 
  different 
  than 
  that 
  assumed 
  

   by 
  present 
  West 
  Coast 
  workers. 
  The 
  otlicr 
  interpretation 
  would 
  be 
  as 
  Gray 
  stated 
  in 
  the 
  

  

  