
Description.
General appearance.—Valves reduced, girdle very broad, encroaching on the valves at sutures, shell smooth surface, anterior valve ray-ribbed, lateral area defined by a diagonal fold, pleural area more or less deeply longitudinally grooved, deep wedge-shaped notches margining these grooves, dorsal area well defined, broad, smooth, and beaked, mucro post-median, colour, valves pink, girdle buff.
Anterior valve.—This spirit specimen shows only three ray-ribs, the two disarticulated specimens show four, corresponding to the four slits, as in Suter's type; (Mr. Brookes has now in his collection three specimens showing five distinct rays, with corresponding slits); the surface of shell between ribs is smooth except for slight growth-lines and a few deep cuneiform excavations in upper half of shell.
Median valve.—Dorsal area beaked, smooth, broadly wedge-shaped, shallowly notched at margin (pinnatifid); pleural area with 4 to 6 deep longitudinal grooves margined with deep triangular notches or excavations; lateral area with a distinct fold separating it and pleural area; decoration irregular, and consists of more or less wedge-shaped excavations.
Posterior valve.—Dorsal area as in other valves, mucro post-median several longitudinal grooves similar to pleural area in other valves, posterior portion behind mucro shallow (flattish), slope almost straight, ornamentation consisting of irregular excavations.
Girdle.—Greatly expanded, and occupies fully two-thirds of total width of animal, encroaches greatly at sutures; upper side of girdle “spongy” to the naked eye or under a low-power pocket lense and apparently without spicules, hair-tufts, or pores (as stated by Suter); but under 65 mag. girdle is seen to be clothed with spaced, adpressed, minute spicules, varying in length from 4/200 to 6/200 mm. or 20 to 30 mmm. Underside of girdle clothed with adpressed glassy spicules or modified hair-like scales. With a pocket lens the writer was unable to find any evidence of sutural hair-tufts, but under 65 mag. the existence of three sub-obsolete hair-tufts was noted on the two dry specimens, but under a similar magnification the specimen in spirit was found to possess some evidence of sub-obsolete hair-tufts at all sutures. No sutural pores detected, but slender curved spicules noted, three times the length of the other girdle-spicules, the longest measured being 14/200 mm. or 70 mmm.
Inside.—White, anterior valve 4 slits, equidistant, broad and deep, groove continued to tegmentum, teeth sharp and straight-edged,

articulamentum thick and broad, here and there narrowly ridged, slits corresponding with ray-ribs; median valves slits 1/1, posterior valve irregularly slit as in genus Notoplax.
Measurements.—Of spirit specimen, total length 42 mm., width 23 mm. of which the girdle occupies two-thirds, total length of body, i.e., foot and head, 33 mm. of which head occupies 5 mm., width of foot a bare 10 mm., width of head 8 mm., gills post-median, 20 gill-slits counted which commence 4 mm. in front of anal extremity and extend forward 17 mm.
Remarks.—Suter's excellent description compared with the foregoing will give some idea of the margin of variation but he was incorrect in stating that the girdle was almost naked with very few silvery hairs near the margin. I have not seen any marginal fringe and the apparent absence of spicules under a low power is misleading, for minute spicules are distributed all over. Suter was also quite unaware of the sub-obsolete hair-tufts; again, he was incorrect in stating that the teeth in the first seven valves are finely pectinated, because in the usual acceptance of the term as applied to the genus Tonicia they are not pectinated at all; a glance at the figure of Tonicia will at once show the difference; Suter's statement “with gills extending nearly the whole length of the foot” is hardly correct, as a reference to the within measurements will show that the gills are but little more than half the length of the foot.
I consider Pseudotonicia cuneata to be a specialized form belonging to the family Acanthochitonidae; and whereas in the subfamily Cryptoplacinae the slits of the anterior valve are reduced to 3, in this species they are reduced to 4. As this feature is persistent, it will seem advisable to erect for its reception a subfamily Pseudotonicinae, immediately following the subfamily Acanthochitoninae.
Addenda.—Since the completion of the paper Mr. Brookes informs me that he has obtained three additional examples of Pseudotonicia cuneata, in each of which the anterior valve possesses 5 rays with corresponding slits in the insertion-plate. It is quite evident that the reduction of slits in this valve to four is not constant, and I have therefore asked Mr. Brookes to correct letterpress making the description read “4 or 5 slits” and I take this opportunity of expressing grave doubts as to whether the existence of the “minute eye-dots” is, taken by itself, sufficient grounds to warrant the retention of the proposed new subfamily Pseudotonicinae; if not, then this genus will have to be relegated to a position under the subfamily Acanthochitoninae.
Habitat.—Brookes collected all his specimens in Tauranga Harbour, opposite the town, in three fathoms. The two damaged specimens referred to were obtained from the mooring chain, and the others from the spoil deposited by the dredge engaged in deepening the approach to the new wharf. Bottom of hard pumiceous formation. The original specimen described by Suter came from the Bay of Islands.

Acanthochiton thileniusi.
Acanthochites thileniusi Thiele, Rev. des Sys. der Chitonen, pp. 50–51, pl. 6, figs. 55–58, 1909.
Acanthochites tristis Iredale, Proc. Mal. Soc. Lon. vol. 9, pt. 3, p. 155, 1910, not of Rochebrune.
Acanthochites (Acanthochiton) bisulcatus Wissel, Zool. Jahrb. Systs., vol. 20, p. 614, pl. 21, figs. 28–29 (anatomy), only applies to examples from Tauranga; not of Pilsbry.
Acanthochites zealandicus thileniusi Ashby, “The Acanthoid Chitons of New Zealand,” Proc. Mal. Soc. Lon., vol. 17, pt. 1, pp. 13–14, pl. 4, figs. 5–7.
Introduction.—In the writer's paper “The Acanthoid Chitons of New Zealand” (l.c.), he gave an English translation of Thiele's description, and commented on points of difference between an example in his own collection that had originally been sent to him by the late Henry Suter, the data as to locality having been lost; it will therefore be unnecessary to reproduce that translation, only quoting the following comments.
“Thiele makes reference to longitudinal grooving in the dorsal areas, and this at first led me to conclude that his shell was conspecifie with the deeply-grooved shell hereinafter described under the name brookesi; a reference to Thiele's figure of the tail-valve entirely precludes such a possibility. Thiele also described A. zealandicus as having longitudinal grooving in the dorsal areas; I therefore conclude that in both cases his remark refers to sub-cutaneous lining, which so simulates grooving that its true character can only be determined by the use of a binocular microscope and lateral lighting.”
The rediscovery of A. thileniusi at the type locality by Brookes enables the question of the longitudinal grooving in the dorsal areas to be finally settled; he has given me two of his Tauranga specimens, and these show distinct longitudinal grooving in the dorsal areas, but the riblets are about half the width of the corresponding riblets in Brookesi Ashby, the grooving much shallower, and their structure when seen under a microscope quite distinct.
Comparison with Allied Forms.—Although I still consider thileniusi to belong to what I call the zealandicus section of the genus Acanthochiton, the very definite grooving and peculiar sculpture of the riblets of the dorsal areas justifies the erection of this species to full specific rank.
In thileniusi the dorsal area is a little narrower than in either zealandicus or doubtlessensis, but very similar to this area in brookesi; in both zealandicus and doubtlessensis longitudinal grooving in this area is absent, but present in thileniusi and brookesi; in the former the riblets are sinuate and rugose, the grooves between being very shallow, the riblets between the grooves varying in width from about 50 to 62 mmm.; in brookesi these riblets are not wavy and rugose but straight and comparatively smooth, and the grooves between much deeper; the width of these riblets varies from about 62 to 100 mmm.; the coarser riblets are formed by the confluence of two narrower ones and often show a shallow mid-groove.

The tail-valves of zealandicus, thileniusi, and doubtlessensis, are all small and very similar in shape, although the tegmentum of the latter is proportionally smaller; the tail-valve of brookesi is large, being three times the size of the others, and the insertion-plate suggests a transition towards the genus Notoplax, thus placing that species in a different section of the genus Acanthochiton.
The flat, somewhat circular granules in the pleural areas of the median valves, measure in thileniusi about 100 by 137 mmm.; in zealandictus 90 by 125 mmm.; but in doubtlessensis they measure 137 by 200 mmm.
Habitat.—Dredged by Brookes in one and a half fathoms low spring-tide on shells of live Mytilus, close to entrance Tauranga Harbour.
Acanthochiton doubtlessensis.
Acanthochiton zealandicus doubtlessensis Ashby, Proc. Mal. Soc. Lon. (l.c.).
The proposed elevation of Thiele's shell to full specific rank suggests the desirability of similarly elevating doubtlessensis. Quoting from my paper (op. cit.): “This form differs from zealandicus s.s. in the whole shell being much less raised; in the form of the median valves which are very flat and longitudinally short; in the sculpture, the granules being more elongate, definately larger and more widely spaced; in the tail-valve having the posterior slope, behind mucre, less vertical.
I have above supplied the actual measurements of the granules in comparison with allied forms, and have pointed out that the tegmentum of the tail-valve of this species is proportionately smaller than that of its congenors. I hesitated in my earlier paper to grant full specific rank because of the very limited number of localities from which specimens of zealandicus were available, and feared the possibility that there might exist a gradual transition from the form from French Pass, the type locality (my specimens from Lyall Bay I consider typical), to the coarsely sculptured form from Doubtless Bay. Reviewing this, and with the concurrence of Mr. Brookes, I now suggest that this form be recognized as a good species and not a subspecies of zealandicus, although with thileniusi it must be recognized as belonging to that section which we have called zealandicus section of the genus Acanthochiton.
