260 MELANIIDffi. 



A remarkably solid, heavy form ; upper whorls smooth, the 

 last (and sometimes the last two) with a row of ill-defined 

 longitudinal ribs from the centre of the whorl to its base, de- 

 veloped into spinose tubercles above ; closely resembles M. 

 Brot's pi. 12, fig. 4A ["iH. hrookei, var. pontificalis " ], but the 

 tubercles are more regular and numerous and placed a little 

 more centrally. Long, 72, diam. 24| mil. 



Reeve gives Mel. ^pontificalis as a synonym of Mel. infracostata 

 from Borneo. 



3 Ceylon [?] ; coll. E. L. Layard, Esq. [A. S. B.]. 



A very interesting and distinct form, although I cannot help 

 dotibting the correctness of the label — " Ceylon." 



I have never seen the species elsewhere, either from that island 

 or from South India. 



subspecies menkoana [emend.]. 



Melania Menkiana, Lea, Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 1842, for 3Iel. plicata. 

 Lea, Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. VI \_1835, fide Lea'], not of Menke, 1S29, 

 " India 1" ; = M. spinosa, (Benson), Haiilei/, Conch. Misc. tS56, pi. 1, 

 fig. 7 [not Mel. spinosa, " Benson," of Brot. Conch.- Cab. II, or 

 Mel. variabilis, var. spinosa, Hanley, Con. Indica, pi. 75, fig. 6] ; = 

 Con. Indica, pi. 110, fig. 6, M. menkiana Lea, " Khersasip, N. Cachar " ; 

 = M. variabilis, Benson, var. £., J. A. S. B. V, 1S36, Sylhet ; var.= 

 M. godtvini, Brot, Conch.- Cab. II, 1S74 ; for Mel. hanley i, G. — Aust. 

 1872, N, Cachar, Biyung river [not Mel. hanleyi, Brot] . 



Benson's description of M. variabilis, var, B. is — " Liris, medi- 

 ana excepta, obsoletis ; nodulis subspinosis carinam humeralem 

 coronantibus." 



When Mr. Hanley issued plate 75 of the Con. Indica (seo 

 page 32, 1. c), he evidently had not discriminated between the 

 two forms represented by his two above-quoted figures ; on page 

 45, however, he correctly separates the form which Lea described 

 as M. menlciana [not M. menkeana as stated by M. Brot, who 

 incorrectly charges Mr. Hanley with the error] and states (which 

 is also undoubtedly the case) that it is the same form as that 

 originally figured by him in the Conch. Misc. as M. spinosa, 

 Benson ; Lea's figure is nearer Con. Ind. pi. 110, fig, 5 [JHf. 

 godwini, Brot] than fig. 6 [ilf. meyilceana'] ; unfortunately, M. 

 Brot adopts the name of M. spinosa, Bs., for pi. 75, fig. 6 



