BOTSIA. 297 



placing it near Puixt. At the same time he altered the speeiiic 

 name to hensoni, to do which he had no right and for which, 

 moreover, there was no iieed. Curiously enough, witli one 

 exception, every subsequent author who has referred to the 

 species has acquiesced in this arbitrary procedure. In 1850, 

 Albers, unaware apparently that Pfeiifer had already proposed a 

 new genus, introduced Hupostoma, placing it between Anosioma 

 and Tomigeras. The name having already been employed in 

 three different classes in zoology, von Martens, in 1860, altered 

 it to JTypotvema, at the same time reducing it to a section 

 of Pupa. 



In 1807 Stoliczka described a fossil shell, from a cretaceous 

 fresh-water deposit in the Xortli-Easterii Alps, under the name 

 of Boi/sia Iteussii*. Xevill in referring to this fossil f states that 

 it is a well characterized form and considers, judging from the 

 figure, that it is possibly correctly referred to Boynia. 



With all due deference to the weighty opinion of so eminent a 

 naturalist as Stoliczka or that of Nevill, I do not think the 

 association of two such different forms in one genus a very 

 happy one. The recent Indian shell has the aperture on the 

 same level as the penultimate whorl, forming not a rectangle 

 but a very acute angle, and on the last whorl the mouth is 

 vertical, whereas the European cretaceous shell has the mouth 

 inclined at a very acute angle. iSandberger certainly had a much 

 truer ])erception of its alHnity, I believe, when he referred the 

 fossil to the genus Strophostoma t. 



Quite recently Professor Cockerell has also referred two Tertiary 

 species from Wyoming, U.S.A., to the genus i)'oy*/rt §. One of 

 these, B. pkenacodorum, to judge from the figure, beai's a striking 

 resemblance to the Indian recent species. I am inclined to 

 think, however, that tliis is simply a case of convergence. For 

 another closely allied form he creates a new genus, Protohoysia. 



•2r)6. Boysia boysi, Pfeiffer. 



Tomoiierea boysii {Anostovia) (IJensoii), Pfeit{er, Symb. Hist. Helic. 



iii,'jS4t), p. 82. 

 Anmtuma boysii (Benson), Pfeiffer, Mou. Ilelic. Viv. i, 1847, p. 2; 



Benson, A". ^l. N. H. ser. 2, ii, 1848, p. 104. 

 Boysia bensoni, Pfeitier, Zeit. JMalak. vi, 1849, p. lOo ; ibid.. Concli.- 



Cab., Heli.r, ii, 185,'5, j). 0, pi. 101, tigs. 2o-28 ; Adums, Ueii. l^ec. 



Moll, ii, 18oo, p. 1()7, pi. 7(i, tig. 2 ; Pfeitier, Malak. lUiilt. ii, 1850, 



p. 172; Hanley .t Theobald, Concli. Ind. 1870, pi. 8, tig. 1; 



PfeifTer & Clessin, Xomencl. flelic. ^'iv. 1881, p. ;i4o : Trvon, 



Struct. Syst. Conch, iii, 1884, p. .>5, ]>!. 100, tig. 98. 

 Hyposfoma boysii, Alber.s, Die Ileliceen, 1850, p. 130. 

 I'upa (Hypotrema) boysii, von Martens, Die Ileliceen, ed. 2, 1860, 



p. 305. 



* Sitz.-Ber. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, xxxviii, 18.J9, p. -\^?>, pi. 1, fig. 17. 



■I- J. A. S.B. 1, 1881, p. 128. 



} Land- und Sussw. Concli. Vorwelt, 1871, p. 80, pi. o. fig. 12. 



§ Bull. Aiuer. Mus. Nat. Hist. !New York, xxxiii, 1914, p. 324. 



