﻿IKKDALE 
  & 
  may: 
  MISNAMED 
  TASMANIAN 
  CHITONS. 
  115 
  

  

  sinclairi, 
  also 
  from 
  jS'ew 
  Zealand. 
  In 
  1847 
  lleeve 
  figured 
  the 
  latter 
  

   species 
  with 
  the 
  locality 
  "Van 
  Dieman's 
  Land. 
  Dr. 
  Sinclair". 
  In 
  

   1877 
  Teiiison-Woods 
  included 
  this 
  species 
  in 
  the 
  Tasnianian 
  census, 
  

   but 
  noted 
  " 
  Localitj' 
  doubtful. 
  N.Z. 
  species". 
  In 
  1893 
  Pilsbry 
  

   included 
  in 
  the 
  Manual 
  C. 
  pellisserpentis 
  and 
  C. 
  sinclairi, 
  but 
  only 
  

   gave 
  for 
  each 
  the 
  locality 
  New 
  Zealand. 
  The 
  next 
  year 
  Cox 
  added 
  

   Sydney 
  as 
  a 
  locality 
  for 
  the 
  former 
  species, 
  and 
  later 
  observed 
  

   that 
  he 
  had 
  specimens 
  from 
  Port 
  Jackson 
  which 
  he 
  took 
  to 
  be 
  

   C. 
  sinclairi. 
  The 
  same 
  year 
  Pilsbry 
  stated 
  he 
  could 
  not 
  separate 
  the 
  

   Svdney 
  sliells 
  sent 
  him 
  by 
  Cox 
  from 
  IS^eozelanic 
  specimens. 
  In 
  1901 
  

   Tate 
  and 
  May 
  re])laced 
  C. 
  sinclairi 
  by 
  C. 
  fellisserpentis 
  on 
  the 
  

   Tasmanian 
  list. 
  In 
  1912 
  May 
  and 
  Toir 
  write 
  of 
  C. 
  pellisserpentis 
  

   as 
  " 
  tlie 
  commonest 
  of 
  all 
  Tasmanian 
  Chitons", 
  while 
  a 
  similar 
  shell 
  

   is 
  common 
  in 
  Port 
  Jackson. 
  The 
  southern 
  Tasmanian 
  shells 
  differ 
  

   appreciably 
  from 
  Neozelanic 
  shells 
  in 
  shape, 
  elevation, 
  sculpture, 
  etc. 
  

   In 
  order 
  to 
  gauge 
  the 
  value 
  of 
  these 
  differences 
  we 
  have 
  studied 
  

   Neozelanic 
  shells 
  from 
  many 
  localities 
  from 
  Auckland 
  to 
  Otago, 
  and 
  

   though 
  we 
  have 
  observed 
  variation 
  we 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  confuse 
  

   Australian 
  with 
  Neozelanic 
  shells. 
  Kobin 
  Kemp 
  collected 
  for 
  one 
  of 
  

   us 
  a 
  long 
  series 
  of 
  this 
  genus 
  in 
  Sydney 
  Harbour, 
  and 
  these- 
  are 
  

   obviously 
  separable 
  from 
  the 
  Tasmanian 
  shell 
  and 
  many 
  of 
  them 
  

   suggest 
  C. 
  sinclairi. 
  It 
  is 
  possible 
  that 
  there 
  are 
  two 
  species 
  of 
  the 
  

   genus 
  also 
  represented 
  in 
  Sydney 
  Harbour, 
  just 
  as 
  there 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  

   two 
  in 
  Soutli 
  Tasmania. 
  Certain 
  shells 
  have 
  been 
  found 
  in 
  the 
  latter 
  

   locality 
  liaviiig 
  the 
  lateral 
  areas 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  the 
  pleural 
  areas 
  smooth. 
  

   We 
  have 
  not 
  yet 
  fixed 
  the 
  status 
  of 
  this 
  smooth 
  shell. 
  If 
  it 
  be 
  an 
  

   aberration 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  species 
  it 
  is 
  unparalleled 
  in 
  tlie 
  Neozelanic 
  

   species, 
  unless 
  C. 
  torri, 
  Suter, 
  be 
  its 
  e(juivalent. 
  The 
  questioti 
  at 
  

   once 
  arises, 
  should 
  these 
  be 
  classed 
  as 
  sub-species 
  or 
  species 
  ? 
  We 
  

   have 
  carefully 
  considered 
  this 
  matter 
  in 
  connexion 
  with 
  southern 
  

   Tasmanian 
  shells, 
  of 
  which 
  we 
  have 
  the 
  following 
  representatives 
  : 
  

   Sypharocliiton 
  mangeanus, 
  'V'd?,., 
  i\\\(\. 
  S. 
  pellisserpentis, 
  N.Z. 
  ; 
  Ischno- 
  

   chiton 
  niilligani, 
  Tus., 
  and 
  /. 
  proteus, 
  N.S.W. 
  ; 
  Ischnochiton. 
  decorutus, 
  

   Tas., 
  and 
  /. 
  crispus, 
  N.S.W. 
  ; 
  Callistochiton 
  mawlei, 
  Tas., 
  and 
  

   C. 
  antiquus, 
  N.S.W.; 
  Lorica 
  cimolia, 
  Tas., 
  and 
  L. 
  volvox, 
  N.S.W. 
  ; 
  

   Rhyssoplax 
  diaphora, 
  Tas., 
  and 
  R. 
  rtigom, 
  N.S.W., 
  and 
  otliers. 
  

  

  It 
  is 
  obvious 
  that 
  the 
  last 
  three 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  treated 
  as 
  subspecies, 
  

   and 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  /. 
  decoraius, 
  Sykes, 
  we 
  have 
  three 
  closely 
  allied 
  

   species 
  living 
  togetlier, 
  scarcely 
  any 
  moi-e 
  difference 
  being 
  observed 
  

   than 
  between 
  the 
  Tasmanian 
  /. 
  decoratus, 
  Sykes, 
  and 
  tlie 
  New 
  South 
  

   Wales 
  /. 
  crispus 
  (lleeve). 
  In 
  the 
  present 
  case 
  we 
  have 
  S. 
  pellisserpftitis 
  

   (Q. 
  & 
  G.) 
  and 
  S. 
  sinclairi 
  (Gray) 
  living 
  together, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  ])ossil)le 
  

   two 
  pairs 
  also 
  occur 
  together 
  in 
  Australia 
  and 
  Tasmania. 
  Thus, 
  

   while 
  not 
  dogmatizing, 
  it 
  seems 
  best, 
  until 
  we 
  know 
  these 
  faunas 
  

   better, 
  to 
  treat 
  each 
  on 
  its 
  merits 
  as 
  specifically 
  distinct, 
  for 
  to 
  

   acourateh' 
  settle 
  the 
  matter 
  long 
  series 
  must 
  be 
  collected 
  in 
  many 
  

   localities. 
  

  

  20. 
  ItUYSSOPLAX 
  DIAPHOKA, 
  u.sp. 
  PI. 
  V, 
  Fig. 
  1. 
  

  

  Shell 
  of 
  full 
  size 
  for 
  the 
  genus, 
  elongate 
  oblong, 
  narrow, 
  slightly 
  

   tapering 
  at 
  the 
  posterior 
  end, 
  strongly 
  elevated 
  and 
  keeled, 
  side-slopes 
  

  

  