Tonicia” gaasensis de Rochebrune, 1882

“ Tonicia” gaasensis de Rochebrune, 1882

Fig. 153E View FIGURE 153

Tonicia gaasensis Benoist M.S., de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 55 , pl. 2, fig. 7; Benoist 1882 a, p. xxix; Benoist 1884, p. 58; Du Boucher 1884, p. 167; von Koenen 1888, p. 349;? Vergneau 1966, p. 357, pl. 7, fig. 20; Van Belle 1981, p. 38; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records); Dell’Angelo et al. 2011, p. 953; Dell’Angelo et al. 2019a, p. 310; Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b, p. 11, figs 4. E–F.

non Tonicia gaasensis ; Varone 2008, p. 156, figs 8–12 (valves not identifiable).

Remarks. This species has been studied by Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b), that found a lot with four intermediate valves in the Benoist collection at MHNBx (MHNBx 2014.14.23.1 to 2014.14.23.3, and MHNBx 2014.14.22), labeled Tonicia gaasensis , from the Oligocene (Rupelian) of Gaas, France. The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Fig. 153E View FIGURE 153 ) do not match with the syntypes at MHNBx ( Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b), the four intermediate valves in the Benoist collection have been excluded from the type series and attributed to other Lepidochitona spp . ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b: tab. 2). The generic attribution of this species remains unassessed, and the taxon Tonicia gaasensis has been considered as nomen dubium because the type material was not found ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b).

“ Tonicia ” pustulifera de Rochebrune, 1882

Fig. 153F View FIGURE 153

Tonicia pustulifera de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 67 , pl. 3, fig. 2; Van Belle 1981, p. 59; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records).

Remarks. Some of the species described by de Rochebrune (1882), including the species discussed here and the following three, are reported from the locality of “Goubesville”, referred to the Miocene. We do not know this locality, which could be “Gourbesville”, a well know site from the “Redonian” of the northwestern France, now considered upper Piacenzian–lower Gelasian in age ( Lauriat-Rage 1981; Van Dingenen et al. 2015).

The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Fig. 153F View FIGURE 153 ) preclude the identification of this species in the absence of the examination of the type material. We consider this taxon species inquirenda, whose generic status is uncertain.

“ Gymnoplax ” gaudryi de Rochebrune, 1882

Figs 153G–H View FIGURE 153

Gymnoplax gaudryi de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 68 , pl. 1, fig. 6; Van Belle 1981, p. 39.

Acanthochitona gaudryi ; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records).

Remarks. De Rochebrune described intermediate and tail valves from Goubesville (now Gourbesville, see above). The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Figs 153G–H View FIGURE 153 ) are insufficient to identify the species, in the absence of the examination of the type material. This taxon is considered species inquirenda, and the generic attribution uncertain.

“ Gymnoplax ” chalmasi de Rochebrune, 1882

Figs 153I–J View FIGURE 153

Gymnoplax chalmasi de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 69 , pl. 1, fig. 4; Van Belle 1981, p. 27.

Acanthochitona chalmasi ; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records).

Remarks. De Rochebrune described intermediate and tail valves from Goubesville (now Gourbesville, see above); there are no further citations for this taxon since the original description. The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Figs 153I–J View FIGURE 153 ) are insufficient to characterize the species, in the absence of the examination of the type material, we therefore consider this taxon as species inquirenda, whose generic attribution remains uncertain.

“ Acanthochites ” meunieri de Rochebrune, 1882

Fig. 153K View FIGURE 153

Acanthochites meunieri de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 66 , pl. 3, fig. 4; Van Belle 1981, p. 50.

Acanthochitona meunieri ; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records).

Remarks. De Rochebrune described intermediate and tail valves from Goubesville (now Gourbesville, see above). The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Fig. 153K View FIGURE 153 ) are insufficient to characterize the species, in the absence of the examination of the type material, and there have been no further reports after the original description. Weconsider this taxon as species inquirenda, whose generic status remains uncertain.