112 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. XXII. 



ably also the original manuscript name of Gray, must have 

 precedence over Gray's later name Velorita. 



Gray believed his specimen of V. cyprinoides to have come 

 from Japan, but Prime ' considered it doubtfully to be an inhabit- 

 ant of the Philippines. The second species V. cochinensis^ was 

 described by Hanley from Cochin on the Malabar Coast of 

 Peninsular India, while Prime ^ was not sure as to the habitat of 

 his new species T'. farvida. I know of no authentic records of 

 the occurrence of this genus outside the limits of the Malabar Coast 

 in Peninsular India since both Gray's and Prime's localities can 

 not be accepted as correct, and all authentic specimens in the 

 Indian Museum a:;e from the same area. Fischer* considered the 

 genus to be strictly confined to India, and Preston* following him 

 was of the same opinion though, without giving any reasons, he 

 included the Phihppine Islands in the range of distribution of the 

 genus. It appears, therefore, from all authentic records available, 

 that the genus is a true Indian one occurring only in the brackish 

 water areas on the Malabar Coast of Peninsular India. 



Leaving aside the scattered references in literature to this 

 genus the only works of importance are (i) Prime's Catalogue of 

 of Corbiculidae (loc. cit.), (ii) Sowerby's Monograph in Reeve's 

 Conchologia Iconica, (iii) Clessin's revision of the genus in Martini 

 and Chemnitz's Conch. Cab., and (iv) Preston's account of the two 

 species (loc. cit.) and later his description" of a new species 

 {V. delicattda) from the Cochin backwaters. Prime's earlier papers 

 on the various species are referred to in his later catalogue and 

 need no further remarks, beyond the fact that from his short des- 

 cription it appears that his new species V . parvula is probably a 

 young shell of V . cvprinnidcs only. His catalogue includes most 

 of the earlier references on the subject. Sowerby's monograph as 

 was shown in vSmith's review ^ is not a work of any importance. 

 Not only are references to the species V. recurvafa and V. parvula 

 omitted, but the species I', cochiiiensis is erroneously referred to 

 Smith instead of Hanley. His descriptions and figures also are 

 very poor and the habitat of the two species dealt with is in- 

 correctly stated. It maj^ be noted here, that V. recurvata is not a 

 Villorita, but should, as Deshayes and Prime have done, be 

 referred to the genus Corbicula. Clessin's Monograph, though 

 better than Sowerby's, appears mainly to be a compilation. No 

 critical analysis of the three species dealt with is given, and was 

 very probably based on an examination of very scanty material of 

 V. cyprinoides alone. Preston omits all reference to V. recurvata 

 and t'. parvula, and recognizes two Indian species V . cyprinoides 



1 Prime, Cat. Corbiculidae. in Amer. Joiirii. Conch. \ , p. i+i ( 1S70). 



2 Hanley, Proc. Zcol. Soc. London, p. 543 ( 1858). 



■' Prime, Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hht. Neiv York \'I11, p. 418 (1867). 



* l-'isclier, Man. Concltyliologie. p. 1092 (1887). 



6 Preston, Faun. Brit. Ind., Fresh'A'.-MoU . p. 209 uyi.S) 



s Preston, Rec. Ind. Mus. XII, p. 37, fig's. 13, 1317, b (1916). 



7 Smith. Journ. Conrhyliologie. XXIX. pp. 38—42 (iSSil. 



