Trichoplatus huttoni A. Milne-Edwards.

Trichoplatus huttoni A. Milne-Edwards, Bull. Soc. Phil., 12th Feb., 1876.

— A. Milne-Edwards, Amn. Sci. Nat., ser. 6, t. 4, art. 9, Pl. 10. 1876.

Halimus hectori Miers, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 17, p. 219. 1876.

— Miers, Cat. Crust. N.Z., p. 4, Pl. 1. Fig. 1. 1876.

Halimus rubiginosus Kirk, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 13, p. 236. 1881.

— Filhol, Mission de l'Ile Campbell, p. 352. 1885.

Trichoplatus huttoni Filhol, l.c., p. 352. 1885.

— Hector, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 9, p. 474. 1877.

— Thomson, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 45, p. 236. 1913.

It has been recognised by all writers, including Miers and Milne-Edwards, that the species described by those authors are identical, and we have taken the further step of uniting Kirk's name also as a simple synonym of Milne-Edwards', for the following reasons:

Kirk was unaware of the work of Milne-Edwards, though he wrote several years later; the briefness of Miers' description and the poorness of his figure, due to the mutilated condition of the only specimen in the British Museum, explain why Kirk distinguished another supposed species, but if he had seen the careful description and the figure given by Milne-Edwards he would hardly have taken that step. It is obvious that Kirk's species is the same as Milne-Edwards', and though less obvious it is quite certain that Miers' is also the same.

The reasons which influenced Kirk were as follows: A drawing of his specimen was forwarded by Hector to Miers, who replied that it was evidently closely related, “the tubercles occupying the same positions, but being in some places replaced by spines, also the rostral spines are longer and more acute. These differences may be due to age or sex.… Only an actual comparison of your variety with the type of H. hectori would enable me to determine whether it is really distinct” (Hector 1877, p. 474). The differences were found by Kirk not to be due to age or sex, and disregarding Miers' added caution, and evidently not realising the imperfection of Miers' figure and description, he proposed the new species. Miers' comments may be accounted for; the tuft of hairs on the tubercles might well give the latter a spinous appearance in a drawing, and the rostral spines of Miers' figure are shorter than in any subsequently recorded specimens, including our present series. Curiously enough, Kirk did not include these characters in his diagnosis, but gave characters which, especially in the absence of a figure, can be regarded only as inadequate.

Thus in our opinion Halimus hectori Miers and H. rubiginosus Kirk are the same, and are synonyms of Trichoplatus huttoni Milne-Edwards.