Chitonellus” gigas

“ Chitonellus” gigas O.G. Costa, 1856

Chitonellus gigas O.G. Costa, 1854 –1856, p. 348, pl. 28, fig. 10; Dell’Angelo et al. 2007a, p. 47; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records); Dell’Angelo et al. 2016, p. 95.

Remarks. Chitonellus gigas O.G. Costa, 1856, described on the base of an intermediate valve from the Pleistocene of Cannitello (Reggio Calabria, Italy) cannot be referred to the genus Cryptoplax (= Chitonellus Lamarck, 1819 ), and its generic attribution remains uncertain. The species is not present in the Costa’s collection hosted in the Paleontological Museum of Napoli University. The taxon “ Chitonellus ” gigas must be considered a nomen dubium ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2007a: p. 47).

“ Lepidopleurus ” daubrei de Rochebrune, 1882

Figs 153B–C View FIGURE 153

Lepidopleurus daubrei de Rochebrune, 1882, p. 56 , pl. 1, fig. 9; Benoist 1882, p. xxix; Benoist 1884, p. 58; Du Boucher 1884, p. 167; von Koenen 1888, p. 349;? Vergneau 1966, p. 357, pl. 7, fig. 19; Van Belle 1981, p. 33; Dell’Angelo & Palazzi 1989, p. 89; Puchalski et al. 2008 (database: chiton fossil records); Dell’Angelo et al. 2011, p. 954, Appendix 2; Dell’Angelo et al. 2019a, p. 310; Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b, p. 9, figs 4.A–B.

non Lepidopleurus daubrei ; Varone 2008, p. 156, figs 1–7 [= Lepidochitona oligocaena ( Rolle, 1862) View in CoL ].

Remarks. This species has been studied by Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b), based upon a lot of six valves (5 intermediate and 1 tail) in the Benoist collection at MHNBx (MHNBx 2014.14.32.1 to 2014.14.32.3, MHNBx 2014.14.23.4 to 2014.14.23.6), labeled Lepidopleurus daubrei , from the Oligocene (Rupelian) of Gaas, France. De Rochebrune (1882) reported in his original description the locality of Lepidopleurus daubrei as Mérignac, near Bordeaux. However, Benoist (1882 a: p. xxix) reported that the three species sent to de Rochebrune ( Tonicia gaasensis de Rochebrune, 1882 , T. waltebledi de Rochebrune, 1882 and Lepidopleurus daubrei de Rochebrune, 1882 ), were from Gaas, as in the label in the Benoist collection ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b, figs 4A–B). The description and figure given by de Rochebrune ( Figs 153B–C View FIGURE 153 ) do not match with the valves deposited at MHNBx; as discussed by Dell’Angelo et al. (2020b), the six 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). Therefore, the taxon Lepidopleurus daubrei , whose generic attribution remains uncertain, has been considered as a nomen dubium ( Dell’Angelo et al. 2020b).