262 HELIX-CHLORITIS. 



This heavy, solid shell is remarkable for the thick, broadly re- 

 flexed lip, sinuous on its base. 



Var. OBTECTA Reinhardt. 



Agrees with the typical Rehsei in form, coloration and sculpture ; 

 differs in having the umbilicus entirely closed by the broadly re- 

 flexed columellar lip. Alt. 37, greater diam. 48, lesser 35 mill. 



H. CONCISA Ferussac. PI. 49, fig. 15. 



Shell umbilicated, depressed, solid, unicolored reddish, regularly 

 striate, cut by irregular, oblique furrows; spire somewhat plane, 

 suture impressed ; whorls 6, a trifle convex, the last one rounded, 

 scarcely deflexed in front ; umbilicus funnel-shaped ; aperture 

 oblique, lunate-oval, shining inside ; peristome subthickened, white, 

 expanded, margins joined by an arcuate white callus. 



Alt. 25, greater diam. 58, lesser 46 mill. (Pfr.) 



Waigheu, New Guinea ; Am Is.; Id. of Ravack. 



H. concisa FEE., Hist. t. 78, f. 3, 4 ; Voy. de 1'Uranie, p. 470. 

 WOOD, Index Test. Suppl. t. 7, f. 53. PFR. Monogr. i, p. 373.- 

 Semicornu concisa Fer., WALLACE, P. Z. S. 1865, p. 410. Helix 

 (Sulcobasis) concisa Fer., TAPPARONE CANEFRI, Ann. Mus. Civ, 

 Genov. xix, p. 165, 1883. 



3. Subsection Austrochloritis Pilsbry, 1891. 



Shell small, thin, unicolored brown or corneous-brown ; umbilicate, 

 depressed, hairy or having hair-scars or points, even to the apex; 

 spire slightly convex ; upper whorl planorboid ; periphery rounded ; 

 aperture round-lunar, outer lip narrowly expanded, thin, columellar 

 lip reflexed partly concealing the umbilicus, which is excavated 

 somewhat behind it ; ends of peristome converging ; suture deeply 

 impressed. Type, Helix porteri Cox. 



Distribution, Northern Australia and New Guinea. 



Separated from Chloritis by the convex spire ; from Sulcobasis by 

 the small thin shell, lacking spiral sulci ; from Planispira and Cristi- 

 gibba the closely granulate apex will separate.it. 



This group is very like the Indo-Chinese section Trichochloritis. 

 The Australian species referred by authors to Traehia (such as H. 

 tuckeri, cyclostomata, dentoni etc.) seem to hold about; the same rela- 

 tion to Austrochloritis that the typical Traehia of India (H. asperella, 

 Nilagherica,') bear toward Trichochloritis. These groups are still in 

 great confusion. In arranging them I am handicapped by the fact 



