217 



The following species have been described as from Australia: — L. inqiii- 

 natiis, Reeve, 1847; L. liratiis, Adams and Angas, 1865; L. matfheivsiauus, 

 Bednall, 1906 ; L. hadius, Hedley and Hull, 1906 ; L. columnarius, Hedley and 

 May, 1908; L. niger, Torr, 1911; L. pelagicus, Torr, 1912; and, lastly, a form 

 I am describing in this paper and naming L. profundus, Ashby, 1923. 



Lepidopleurus inquinatus. Reeve, 1847. 



(Chiton inquinatus, Reeve, Conch. Icon., pi. xxiii., fig. 154, May, 1847; Iscluiochiton 

 inquinatus, Rv. of Pilsbry, Man. Con., vol. xiv., p. 90; Lepidopleurus inquinatus, Rv. of 

 Iredale, Trans. N. Z'd Inst., vol. xlviii., 1914, p. 423 ; auct. non L. inquinatus, Rv. of Sykes, 

 Proc. Mai. Soc, vol. ii., pt. 2, July, 1896; non L. inquinatus, Rv. of Ashby, Proc. Roy. Soc. 

 Vict., 2)Z (N.S.), 1921— ? Lepidopleurus iredalei, of Ashby, I.e. 



In my paper describing the Bracebridge Wilson collection, in the National 

 Museum of Victoria, reference was made to Iredale and May's paper (Proc. 

 Mai. Soc, vol. xii., pts. 2 and 3, Nov., 1916) ; in commenting thereon it was 

 contended that with the exception of recently-preserved, perfect specimens, the 

 absence, or otherwise, of spicules on the girdle was not a sufficient indication 

 for complete identification, for in this genus the spicules become detached when 

 left long in spirit. The description and figures of Reeve's L. inquinatus so 

 perfectly fitted the dredged specimens in the Wilson collection that one seemed 

 justified in accepting Sykes' recognition of Reeve's shell in the dredged speci- 

 mens in that collection. 



I then separated the New Zealand shell on account of its distinctive large 

 girdle scales ; the sculpture of that form is so close to that of the Australian 

 shells that, in the absence of the scales, they could not be separated. I therefore 

 gave the name of L. iredalei, Ashby, to the New Zealand shell. 



When going through the types of Polyplacophora in the British Museum, in 

 June, 1922, in company with Mr. Tom Iredale, he pointed out to me that, in his 

 opinion. Reeve's types of this shell were wrongfully labelled as from "Van 

 Diemen's Land, Dr. Sinclair," and were conspecific with one of the New Zealand 

 shells. He had come to this conclusion as the result of careful comparison 

 with a number of specimens loaned to him by Mr. W. L. May and Dr. W. G. 

 Torr, from Tasmania and South Australia, respectively. These specimens are 

 now before me, and I regret they were not available for my comparison with 

 Reeve's types while I was in the British Museum. But this is less important in 

 face of the fact that Mr. Iredale had had ample opportunity of making such 

 comparisons prior to my reaching London. I had with me a disarticulated 

 spirit specimen from the Wilson collection, and the following is a 

 copy of my notes : — "There are four specimens of Chitons on Reeve's type 

 tablet; one is a juvenile Ischnochiton, probably lincolnensis, Ashby; one had 

 been disarticulated by Sykes ; the remaining two were compared with the Vic- 

 torian specimen I had brought with me. This latter is a little deeper in 

 sculpture than those on the tablet, but otherwise similar ; on the other hand, 

 the girdle scales on the Victorian specimen are much smaller than those of the 

 two on the tablet, and the bases of numerous spicules are apparent on the former, 

 whereas I cannot detect them on Reeve's specimens ; although they are dirty, 

 they certainly accord more with the New Zealand species, with which I believe 

 them conspecific." 



As before stated, in good specimens there is very little difference in the 

 sculpture between the New Zealand shells and these dredged Australian ones, 

 but the larger and broader scales and absence of spicules, except at the sutures 

 on the former, easily separate the two. I am therefore concurring with Mr. 

 Iredale's opinion that Dr. Sinclair's specimens were not from Tasmania but 

 from New Zealand. 



