MOLLUSCA OF INDIA. rAD) 
3631 and 3633, from Chittagong, both labelled “ naja,” a name 
I retain. 
3632, from Cachar. 
3636, Dikrang, 2000 ft., Dafla Hills: true subhebes, G.-A. 
3634, no locality : “macera” Blft., Assam; name retained and 
described. (Type.) 
3338, Naga, Assam: is mastersi, G.-A. 
3637, no locality: mastersi G.-A. 
3339, Assam, W. BIf. * macera”: is mastersi, G.-A. 
3635, no locality: naja, G.-A. 
3640, Naga Hills: is mastersi, G.-A. 
When Nevill wrote he considered them all the same and a new 
species ; but it must be remembered that when Nevill was working 
at this genus the same critical examination was not made of the 
shells, such as Pilsbry advised and adopted. The apex and sculp- 
ture was never looked at except with a hand-lens; a microscope 
was never in use. I was employed for six months in 1876-1877 
in the Indian Museum, and saw Nevill constantly at work and 
occasionally worked with him. 
This has caused much confusion, for he also appears to have dis- 
tributed them under the name of “ naga.” Under this title he sent 
a specimen to Mr. Pilsbry, who describes and figures it in ‘ Manual 
of Conchology,’ 2nd Series, Pulmonata, p. 90, pl. 12. f. 10, as 
se naja ” from ‘“ Assam.” ‘This turns out to be the Ge eae 
species. Puilsbry’s shell is undoubtedly frem Assam ; his deserip- 
tion as well as the figure is so good, it verifies the locality. He 
says, as to the sculpture :— —« Glimpses of excessively weak close 
spiral granule-lines may be seen in places.” I had not noted this 
myself, but I now see the character in my type-specimen of a 
Dafla Hill Glessula subheles,an MS. name of G. Nevill’s which L 
had adopted. 
On the other hand, the receipt of these shells in exactly the 
state Nevill left them (and he did a great deal of work on the 
genus, before he had to retire from the Service, especially on 
species from Southern India sent to him by Colonel Beddome) has 
cleared up the history and brought to light another species. In 
August 1880, Nevill, writing to me, said, No. 80 of his ‘ Hand-list ’ 
was (. macera, and I took this to be his MS. name for the lot 
until he should deseribe it. I have not come across the name in 
the Blanford collection nor in Blanford’s original catalogue. It is 
interesting to record that Nos. 3634 and 3339 both bear this name 
on the labels in the glass tubes, and on that in 38634 Nevill has 
written ‘A. macera, BIf.,” so we know the author. It turns out 
that the two tubes contain different species, and 3634 is a mixed 
lot of two species; for the very elongate, flat-sided form of one of 
these the name masera is most applicable, while it is not so for the 
more tumid shape of the other, which is mastersit. This fixes the 
habitat as Assam, and on looking through the Blanford collection I 
find two unnamed Gilessu/e (No. 842.06.1.1 B.M.), the habitat 
Assam, agreeing well in size and form with “ macera,” 
