402 
needed to gents the placing of the four very distinct forms 
herein dealt with under the specific name of C. antiquus, 
eeve, as ni Open thereof. I take it that true science is 
localities has developed a fixed type of its o 
Ra conclusion.—In my list of Australian "Polyplacophora 
ns. Roy. Soc. 8. Austr., vol. xlii., 1918) under the he ading 
Üallistoshefon, two species and one subspecies were given, viz., 
C. antiquus, Rve.. 1847; C. recons, Thiele, 1911; and C. ` 
mawlei, Ire. and Ma , 1916, the lastnamed being recorded as 
from both South Australia and Victoria. As regards the first 
it certainly was incorrect, and as far as I am aware it has not 
yet been found in Victoria. 
wo more must be added to the list now, bringing the 
total to five, and it is very probable that the very beautiful 
shell deseribed by Dr. Torr as Ischnochiton bednalli, may have 
disarticulated specimen, so cannot express a definite opinion. 
Undoubtedly the network Lais Le is suggestive of this 
genus, but in ae other respects it does not show any very 
close affinity with any of our known Australian forms. 
Since finally typing the foregoing paper I have turned 
up Iredale and May’s gies of C. mawlei (Proc. Roy. 
Soc., vol. xii., pts. ii. and iii., Nov. 1916) and cannot refrain 
from quoting meu EE AE ata remarks on the differences: “in 
the formation of the sutural laminae, these are continuous, 
whereas they are widely separated in the species C. antiquus, 
Reeve, and even more so in the South Australian ipe 
tillman Berry, of California, writes me on July 1, 
finding its extreme southern limit in Port uri e Tas- 
mania, where the fesipodet. C. mavlei, I. , 93 
Tasmania to Western Australia, of which the es gran form 
will be C. meridionalis, herein ues with C. mayi, also 
described herein, as i ita. subspeci 
Addenda.— After hn PUE the draft of the foregoing 
~ . paper I received from Mr. C. J. Gabriel, e ME 
i asi uten which he had compared and identified W ae 
| Scale in the Melbourne Mason Mr. 
