.1.78 Records of iJir Indian Museum. [Vol. XXII, 



at my disposal I am, however, miable to definitelj- decide as to 

 whether they should be considered as distinct varieties. 



Schepmann has Teferred to the peculiar vermiculations round 

 the pad on the inner surface of the operculum of P. conica. This 

 character , which was also pointed out by Mousson in his description 

 of scutata and is well shown in his figure, is a constant character 

 of the species. 



The Sumatran specimens are from fresh-water areas near 

 Foengei and Talang Koeda. and from the Soengei Minahol. 



Pachylabra ampullacea (Linn.). 



1S85. Anipullaria mnpiillacea and \ar. juvaemii. NL'\ill, up. cit.. pj). 



1890. Ampullaiia ampullacea. BoeUger. op.ctt.. p. I,S5. 



1896. Amptillaria ampullacea. Schepmann. A'o^es /.e_)'^f); /j/»s. X\'I1. 



P- 159- 

 1S97. Ampullaria ampiillucea, v. Martens, i;/). c;>,, p. 18. 

 1898. Ampullaria ampullacea, Sarasin, P. and F.. op. cit.. p. fvS. 

 1899 Ampullariu ampallacea, Dautzenberg, ^4 );h. Soc. Mal'ikol . Bei- 



giqiie. XXXi \', p. 17. 

 1900. Ampullaria ampullacea var. sumatrensii, v, M.irlfns. Xaciir.- 



Bl. Dent. Malakozool. Ge... XXXI I, p. in. 



1910. Ampullaria ampullacea. SouerbVi op. cit., p. 66. 



1911. Pachylabra ampullacea, Kobelt, op. cit.. pp. 76—78. 



19130 Ampullaria ampullacea. Kruimel, Bijdr. Dierkumie .Am^terilam, 



p. 226. 

 1915. Ampullaria ampullacea, Bollinger, Rev. .'Suisse. Zool. XXII, pp. 



507, 56S. 



Authors have exjierienced great difficulty in ascertaining the 

 exact species, which was named Helix ampullacea by Linnaeus. 

 His description in the " .Museum Ulricae " is unfortunately incom- 

 plete, and, as has been pointed out by Hanley,' contradictory. In 

 the Linnaean collection, however, Hanley found a marked shell, 

 which probably Linnaeus meant to be the type of the species des- 

 cribed in his ■' System J, " but Philippi to whom Hanley- sent a 

 sketch of this specimen considered it to belong to a distinct spe- 

 cies, which he named .4. linnaei. Philippi, in his monograph^ 

 doubtfull)' considered A. ampullacea as synonymous with .4. celc- 

 bensis and considered the various species, which later Reeve right- 

 ly considered as synonymous, as distinct. Reeve "* appears to 

 have been the first author who correctly understood the species 

 named Helix ampullacea by Linnaeus. He included in this spe- 

 cies A. niagnifica, Dunker, .4. siimalrensis, Philippi and .4. ccleben- 

 sis, Quoy and Gaimard, but considered ^4. linnaei, Philippi, as 

 distinct. Nevill followed von Martens and possibly Reeve as re- 

 gards the synonymy of the species, but considered .4. celebensis, 

 llousson'* (not Quoy and Gaimard^) as a distinct variety, which he 



I Hanley, Ipsa Linnaei Conchylia, pp. 36S, 369 (London, iSss)- 



'■^ Ampullaria in Martini and Chemnitz Conch. -Cab., p. 58 (1851). 



3 Conchologia Jconica, pi. x, tig. 4S (1854). 



* A^oll. Java, p. 60, pi. ix, fig. 2 (1849)- 



6 Voy. Astrolabe Zool. II I.' pp. i67-i(-)9 (1834). 



