﻿154 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  MALACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIETY. 
  

  

  tmdulatus. 
  This 
  view 
  appeared 
  reasonable 
  from 
  "Wissel's 
  figures 
  and 
  

   description 
  (Zool. 
  Jahrb. 
  Syst., 
  vol. 
  xx, 
  p. 
  660, 
  figs. 
  67-9, 
  1904), 
  but 
  

   Thiele 
  (Revision 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  Chitonen, 
  1909, 
  p. 
  99), 
  from 
  an 
  examination 
  

   of 
  AVissel's 
  type, 
  has 
  shown 
  marmoratus 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  shell 
  later 
  named 
  

   nodosus 
  by 
  Suter, 
  AVissel 
  having 
  omitted 
  to 
  point 
  out 
  the 
  salient 
  

   characters 
  of 
  his 
  species 
  both 
  in 
  the 
  figure 
  and 
  description. 
  Thiele 
  

   has, 
  moreover, 
  stated 
  that 
  all 
  Rochebrune's 
  species 
  have 
  priority 
  over 
  

   semisculjHus, 
  with 
  which 
  they 
  are 
  identical 
  ; 
  further, 
  that 
  these 
  are 
  

   all 
  synonyms 
  of 
  tinduhtus, 
  and 
  I 
  can 
  see 
  no 
  reason 
  for 
  disagreement. 
  

   The 
  majority 
  of 
  the 
  specimens 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum 
  are 
  " 
  semi- 
  

   sculptus 
  ", 
  and 
  vary 
  so 
  that 
  they 
  become 
  inseparable 
  from 
  a 
  perfectly 
  

   smooth 
  undulatus. 
  If, 
  however, 
  a 
  name 
  is 
  required 
  for 
  this 
  form, 
  

   FilhoU, 
  Rochebrune, 
  must 
  be 
  used. 
  

  

  Recently 
  Suter 
  has 
  given 
  the 
  Onitlio 
  chiton 
  from 
  the 
  sub-Antarctic 
  

   JS'eozelanic 
  islands 
  varietal 
  rank 
  under 
  the 
  name 
  siihantarcticus. 
  I 
  have 
  

   seen 
  many 
  specimens 
  from 
  the 
  Auckland 
  Islands, 
  and 
  upon 
  dissection 
  

   find 
  that 
  the 
  teeth 
  are 
  much 
  shorter 
  than 
  in 
  undulaius. 
  As 
  the 
  

   internal 
  characters 
  vary 
  very 
  little 
  in 
  Onitliocliiton, 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  there 
  

   is 
  a 
  noticeable 
  variation 
  in 
  conjunction 
  with 
  geographical 
  distribution 
  

   and 
  colour 
  constancy 
  would 
  induce 
  me 
  to 
  give 
  this 
  shell 
  specific 
  rank. 
  

   Consequently 
  I 
  would 
  recognize 
  three 
  species 
  of 
  Onithochiton 
  from 
  

   Neozelanic 
  waters: 
  undulatus, 
  Q. 
  & 
  G., 
  of 
  which 
  FilhoU, 
  decipiens, 
  

   Astrolahei, 
  and 
  neglectus, 
  all 
  'of 
  Rochebrune, 
  and 
  semisculptus, 
  Pilsbry, 
  

   are 
  synonyms 
  ; 
  marmoratus, 
  Wissel, 
  of 
  which 
  nodosus, 
  Suter, 
  is 
  

   a 
  synonym 
  ; 
  and 
  siihantarcticus, 
  Suter. 
  Filhol 
  has 
  described 
  Lcpido- 
  

   pleiirus 
  Camplelli 
  from 
  Campbell 
  Island 
  {Comptes 
  Rendus, 
  vol. 
  xci, 
  

   p. 
  1095, 
  1880). 
  Thiele 
  wrote 
  (Revision, 
  p. 
  78), 
  " 
  so 
  ist 
  Zepidojjieuriis 
  

   Campbelli 
  ein 
  dunkelbrauner 
  Onithochiton 
  imdulatns." 
  If 
  this 
  were 
  

   so 
  the 
  name 
  would 
  be 
  applicable 
  to 
  Suter's 
  var. 
  subantarcticus. 
  But 
  

   rilhol's 
  description, 
  given 
  below, 
  indicates 
  a 
  yellow 
  specimen 
  of 
  

   Ischno. 
  Gryei, 
  Filhol: 
  " 
  Couleurjaune 
  clair, 
  dcrniere 
  valve 
  plus 
  grand 
  

   que 
  la 
  premiere, 
  couverte 
  de 
  lignes 
  concentriques, 
  granulees 
  ; 
  aires 
  

   laterales 
  marquees 
  de 
  lignes 
  concentriques, 
  a 
  cavite 
  superieure." 
  

  

  Chiton 
  Geoegianits, 
  Q. 
  & 
  G. 
  

   Chiton 
  Georgianus, 
  Q,. 
  & 
  G., 
  Voy. 
  Astrolabe, 
  Zool., 
  1835, 
  vol. 
  iii, 
  

   p. 
  379, 
  pi. 
  Ixxv, 
  figs. 
  25-30. 
  

  

  The 
  type 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  appears 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  lost. 
  It 
  was 
  

   transferred 
  by 
  Pilsbry 
  (Man. 
  Conch., 
  ser. 
  i, 
  vol. 
  xiv, 
  p. 
  241) 
  to 
  

   Liolophura. 
  Collected 
  by 
  Quoy 
  & 
  Gaimard 
  at 
  King 
  George 
  Sound, 
  

   South- 
  West 
  Australia, 
  it 
  has 
  not 
  since 
  been 
  met 
  with 
  by 
  collectors. 
  

   Search 
  should 
  be 
  made 
  at 
  that 
  localitj^ 
  and 
  the 
  species 
  either 
  

   rehabilitated 
  or 
  eliminated. 
  From 
  Quoy's 
  good 
  description 
  and 
  

   figures 
  it 
  would 
  seem 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  valid 
  species. 
  Another 
  doubtful 
  

   inhabitant 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  locality 
  is 
  Choitopleura 
  hiarmata, 
  Roch. 
  

   (Bull. 
  Soc. 
  Philom., 
  1881-2, 
  p. 
  195), 
  which 
  Thiele 
  (Revision, 
  ii, 
  

   p. 
  73, 
  pi. 
  vii, 
  figs. 
  19-26) 
  has 
  shown 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  good 
  species 
  and 
  

   a 
  Chcctopleura. 
  This 
  genus 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  recorded 
  from 
  Australia. 
  

   Chiton 
  Bicffenlachii, 
  Reeve, 
  JS'ewcastle, 
  Australia, 
  was 
  included 
  by 
  

   Pilsbry 
  (Man. 
  Conch., 
  vol. 
  xiv, 
  p. 
  35) 
  as 
  a 
  Chcetophura, 
  and 
  was 
  

  

  