﻿102 
  PKOCKEDINGS 
  OF 
  THK 
  MALACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIETY. 
  

  

  ITacandreUiis, 
  whereas, 
  superficially, 
  it 
  seemed 
  typically 
  a 
  Craspedo- 
  

   chiton. 
  Again, 
  Thiele 
  placed 
  the 
  Australian 
  variabilis 
  in 
  Lohoplax, 
  

   but 
  we 
  have 
  no 
  hesitation 
  in 
  disagreeing 
  with 
  this 
  point. 
  This 
  

   species 
  (there 
  may, 
  however, 
  be 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  confused 
  under 
  the 
  

   nanie) 
  is 
  of 
  the 
  greatest 
  interest 
  because 
  it 
  cannot 
  be 
  closely 
  

   correlated 
  with 
  any 
  other 
  Australian 
  shell. 
  More 
  study 
  than 
  we 
  have 
  

   yet 
  given 
  to 
  it 
  is 
  necessai'v 
  to 
  determine 
  the 
  correct 
  location 
  of 
  the 
  

   shell, 
  and 
  the 
  animal 
  must 
  be 
  carefully 
  examined. 
  Again, 
  it 
  must 
  

   be 
  admitted 
  tliat 
  ])robably 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  generic 
  form 
  is 
  confused 
  

   under 
  the 
  name 
  Acanthochiton, 
  even 
  as 
  restricted 
  above, 
  since 
  the 
  

   ^' 
  bttdnalli" 
  group 
  seems 
  somewhat 
  different 
  to 
  the 
  " 
  asbeatoides" 
  

   grou[). 
  These 
  may, 
  however, 
  prove 
  to 
  stand 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  relationship 
  

   to 
  each 
  other 
  as 
  typical 
  Notoplax 
  does 
  to 
  typical 
  Loboplax. 
  As 
  one 
  

   of 
  us 
  admitted 
  before, 
  this 
  is 
  the 
  most 
  difficult 
  group 
  in 
  the 
  order 
  

   to 
  satisfactorily 
  determine, 
  and 
  we 
  want 
  much 
  more 
  material 
  to 
  

   work 
  upon. 
  

  

  5. 
  Ckyptoplax. 
  

  

  Reeve 
  described 
  Cliitonelhis 
  gunnii 
  from 
  Eass' 
  Straits, 
  Tasmania, 
  

   but 
  Pilsbry, 
  in 
  his 
  Monograph, 
  considered 
  it 
  a 
  variety 
  of 
  striafiis, 
  

   Lamarck, 
  even 
  as 
  E. 
  A. 
  Smith 
  had 
  concluded 
  some 
  year's 
  previously. 
  

   Consequently 
  Bednall 
  so 
  recorded 
  the 
  South 
  Australian 
  shells. 
  Torr 
  

   recently 
  reverted 
  to 
  the 
  name 
  striatiis, 
  remarking 
  : 
  " 
  CJiilonclhis 
  

   striatua 
  of 
  Lamarck 
  describes 
  our 
  South 
  Australian 
  species 
  

   admirably 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  The 
  breadth 
  of 
  the 
  valves 
  varies 
  so 
  much 
  in 
  sfriaius 
  

   that 
  there 
  seems 
  no 
  room 
  for 
  var. 
  gunnii.''^ 
  Previously, 
  May 
  and 
  

   Torr 
  had 
  catalogued 
  the 
  Tasmanian 
  shells 
  as 
  Cryptoplax 
  striatiis 
  

   (Lamk.), 
  var. 
  gunnii. 
  Probably 
  Torr 
  had 
  overlooked 
  an 
  article 
  by 
  

   Pilsbry 
  in 
  the 
  Proc. 
  ilalac. 
  Soc, 
  vol. 
  iv, 
  pp. 
  151 
  et 
  seqq 
  , 
  March, 
  

   1901, 
  entitled 
  "Morphological 
  and 
  descripiive 
  notes 
  on 
  the 
  genus 
  

   Cri/ptoplax''\ 
  wlierein 
  Pilsbry 
  clearly 
  differentiated 
  specifically 
  

   Cryptiiplax 
  gunnii, 
  Reeve, 
  from 
  Cryptoplax 
  striatus, 
  Lanuirck. 
  In 
  

   this 
  paper 
  Pilsbry 
  used 
  spirit 
  specimens 
  sent 
  by 
  Bednall 
  from 
  

   St. 
  Vincent's 
  Gulf, 
  South 
  Australia, 
  giving 
  a 
  description 
  on 
  p. 
  156 
  

   and 
  figures 
  on 
  pi. 
  xv, 
  figs. 
  17-19, 
  24-6, 
  to 
  be 
  contrasted 
  with 
  

   figs. 
  20—3 
  drawn 
  from 
  Port 
  Jackson 
  specimens 
  of 
  C. 
  striatus, 
  

   Lamarck. 
  British 
  ^luseum 
  specimens 
  confirmed 
  Pilsbrj''s 
  conclusion, 
  

   and 
  North 
  Tasmanian 
  shells 
  generallj- 
  agreed. 
  The 
  first 
  Port 
  Arthur 
  

   (South 
  Tasmania) 
  specimen 
  attracted 
  attention 
  as 
  differing 
  from 
  the 
  

   typical 
  gunnii 
  in 
  being 
  even 
  more 
  elongate. 
  Mr. 
  E. 
  Mawle 
  has 
  

   since 
  collected 
  more 
  Port 
  Arthur 
  specimens, 
  and 
  these 
  indicate 
  the 
  

   solution 
  of 
  Torr's 
  perplexitv, 
  since 
  two 
  very 
  distinct 
  species 
  are 
  living 
  

   togetlier 
  in 
  that 
  localitv. 
  We 
  had 
  observed 
  some 
  differences 
  in 
  other 
  

   collections, 
  but 
  were 
  not 
  certain 
  of 
  the 
  exact 
  source 
  of 
  the 
  shells. 
  

   Mawle's 
  collection 
  has 
  placed 
  us 
  upon 
  sure 
  ground, 
  and 
  the 
  additional 
  

   material 
  we 
  are 
  now 
  obtaining 
  will 
  enable 
  us 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  this 
  matter 
  

   later 
  in 
  more 
  detail. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  meanwhile 
  we 
  can 
  state 
  that 
  the 
  two 
  Port 
  Arthur 
  species 
  

   are 
  quite 
  different 
  superficially 
  and 
  in 
  detail, 
  and 
  that 
  we 
  suggest 
  

   one 
  is 
  the 
  southern 
  representative 
  of 
  "striatus", 
  while 
  the 
  other 
  

  

  