﻿IREDALE 
  & 
  MAY 
  : 
  MISNAMED 
  TASMANIAN 
  CHITONS. 
  99 
  

  

  simultaneously 
  Pilsbry 
  and 
  Suter 
  added 
  New 
  Zealand 
  as 
  an 
  additional 
  

   locality, 
  and 
  Beilaall 
  extended 
  the 
  ranj^e 
  to 
  South 
  Australia. 
  In 
  1910 
  

   May 
  recorded 
  it 
  as 
  dredji;ed 
  in 
  9 
  fathoms 
  off 
  Pilot 
  Station, 
  River 
  

   Derwent, 
  and 
  in 
  1912 
  May 
  and 
  Torr 
  added 
  " 
  large 
  specimens 
  dredged, 
  

   fifteen 
  fathoms 
  in 
  Geographe 
  Strait, 
  East 
  Coast", 
  observing 
  "No 
  

   specimen, 
  to 
  our 
  knowledge, 
  has 
  been 
  taken 
  near 
  the 
  sliore". 
  

  

  Re-examination 
  of 
  these 
  dredged 
  specimens 
  in 
  conjunction 
  with 
  

   the 
  type 
  series 
  necessitated 
  a 
  consideration 
  of 
  Neozelanic 
  and 
  South 
  

   Australian 
  shells. 
  Unfortunately 
  we 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  criticize 
  

   Yictorian 
  examples, 
  hut 
  we 
  have 
  the 
  following 
  facts 
  to 
  record. 
  The 
  

   type 
  set 
  are 
  ol)vii)Usly 
  "shore 
  shells" 
  and 
  agree 
  better 
  with 
  New 
  

   Zealand 
  specimens 
  than 
  with 
  any 
  other, 
  but 
  here 
  again 
  no 
  certainty 
  

   is 
  possible, 
  since 
  they 
  do 
  not 
  exactly 
  agree, 
  and, 
  moreover, 
  we 
  have 
  

   two 
  species 
  collected 
  on 
  the 
  New 
  Zealand 
  littoral 
  ; 
  we 
  have 
  not 
  seen 
  

   the 
  dredged 
  New 
  Zi^aland 
  specimens 
  attributed 
  to 
  this 
  species. 
  We 
  

   particularly 
  note 
  this 
  because 
  we 
  have 
  two 
  series 
  from 
  Tasmania, 
  both 
  

   di 
  edged, 
  and 
  these 
  represent 
  two 
  species, 
  both 
  diti'erent 
  from 
  the 
  types 
  

   of 
  mquinatiis. 
  Torr 
  has 
  also 
  sent 
  us 
  two 
  different 
  sjjecies 
  from 
  South 
  

   Australia, 
  which 
  seem 
  to 
  agree 
  with 
  the 
  Tasmanian 
  forms 
  or 
  to 
  differ 
  

   verj' 
  slightly 
  from 
  them, 
  we 
  have 
  not 
  sufficient 
  material 
  to 
  determine 
  

   wliich. 
  However, 
  all 
  those 
  we 
  have 
  yet 
  examined 
  seem 
  to 
  fall 
  into 
  

   Parachiton, 
  since 
  the 
  gii'dle 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  covered 
  with 
  slender 
  glassy 
  

   spikes, 
  whilst 
  inquinatus 
  and 
  the 
  Neozelanic 
  shore 
  shells 
  have 
  the 
  

   girdle 
  covered 
  with 
  small 
  scales. 
  

  

  There 
  maj' 
  be 
  a 
  rare 
  shore 
  shell 
  in 
  Tasmania 
  which 
  will 
  bear 
  the 
  

   nanu^ 
  inquinatus, 
  and 
  there 
  may 
  be 
  a 
  shore 
  shell 
  in 
  South 
  Australia 
  

   which 
  may 
  hear 
  the 
  name 
  liratus, 
  as 
  the 
  description 
  given 
  refers 
  

   to 
  a 
  shore 
  shell 
  which 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  Lepidopleuriis, 
  but 
  we 
  have 
  not 
  

   yet 
  traced 
  the 
  type. 
  

  

  2. 
  EuDOXOPLAX, 
  gen. 
  nov. 
  

  

  This 
  name 
  is 
  proposed 
  for 
  Chiton 
  inoniatus, 
  Tenison 
  -Woods. 
  

   Pilsbry, 
  in 
  his 
  Monograph, 
  took 
  up 
  a 
  manuscript 
  description, 
  made 
  

   by 
  Carpenter 
  of 
  a 
  shell 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum, 
  under 
  the 
  name 
  

   Callochiton 
  lobatus, 
  placing 
  it 
  in 
  the 
  subgenus 
  Stereochiton 
  from 
  

   Carpenter's 
  note, 
  '' 
  Girdle 
  leathery, 
  smooth, 
  under 
  a 
  lens 
  seen 
  to 
  bear 
  

   short 
  minute 
  sparsely 
  placed 
  hairlets." 
  Later 
  Pilsbry 
  recognized 
  

   this 
  species 
  was 
  Tenison- 
  Wood's 
  species 
  above-named, 
  and 
  still 
  later 
  

   sinking 
  Stereochiton 
  as 
  a 
  synonym 
  of 
  Trachyrndsia, 
  noted 
  the 
  species 
  

   as 
  Callochiton 
  (^'/'rachi/radsia) 
  inoDiatus, 
  Ten. 
  -Woods. 
  

  

  Recent 
  acquisitions 
  of 
  many 
  speciTiiens 
  show 
  the 
  Tasmanian 
  shell 
  

   to 
  reach 
  a 
  large 
  size, 
  and 
  to 
  differ 
  appreciably 
  from 
  Callochiton 
  and 
  

   approach 
  ver}' 
  closely 
  to 
  Endoxochiton. 
  It 
  differs 
  from 
  the 
  latter 
  in 
  

   the 
  very 
  wide 
  leathery 
  girdle 
  with 
  very 
  sliort 
  thin 
  curved 
  few 
  and 
  

   minute 
  little 
  hairs, 
  and 
  may 
  later 
  be 
  regarded 
  as 
  a 
  subgenus 
  of 
  

   Endoxochiton. 
  

  

  3. 
  Plaxiphoua 
  in 
  Australia. 
  

  

  Under 
  this 
  heading 
  one 
  of 
  us 
  gave 
  (Proc. 
  Malac. 
  Soc. 
  Lond., 
  vol.ix, 
  

   June, 
  1910, 
  pp. 
  9(i-10()) 
  the 
  results 
  of 
  the 
  examination 
  of 
  a 
  number 
  

   of 
  specimens, 
  concluding 
  as 
  follows: 
  — 
  

  

  