MOLLUSCA OF INDIA. 5 
differ.” Nevill, I think, only saw young examples ; Reeve’s figure 
copied by Nevill (2. e. G. Nevill), is good. 
Geoffrey Nevill, in a paper on new or little-known Mollusca of 
the Indo-Malayan Fauna*, gives a description of the shell. He 
writes, under Stenogyra (Glessula) orophila, Benson MS.:— 
“Reeve, Conch. Icon. 1850, fig. 105, anfr. 7, long. 14 mill., as 
Achatina orophila, Nilgiris and Colombo; fide Pfr., = his 
A, ceylanica. I give a copy of Reeve’s original magnified 
figure of his A. orophila, as I am by no means convinced 
Dr. Pfeiffer is right in uniting it to his A. ceylanica ; to Judge from 
the figures, I should say they were quite distinct species. It may be 
that Reeve confused two distinct forms—the one figured (probably 
from the Nilgiris) a good and distinct species, the other from 
Ceylon a mere variety of St. ceylanica which may have been sent 
or shown to Dr. Pfeiffer as A. orophila and caused him to unite 
the two species. I have not myself seen any species of the group, 
St. mitens, ceylanica, punctogallana, etc., from Continental India.” 
Semper shows all the interesting details of the genitalia of his 
G. orophila, especially what he terms the flagellum, which is of 
very peculiar form, elongate and comb-like, a character thus 
typical of the genus. It is, I consider, the sac in which the 
spermatophore is developed. In the teeth of the radula the shape 
of the marginals is not given. 
The genus, as recently as 1914, has been treated by Mr. G. K. 
Gude in the ‘Fauna of British India.’ He approached it with 
a great knowledge of conchology, bibliography, and especially 
synonymy—the last most useful to workers, but unattractive. 
They have to thank Mr. Gude for undertaking such labour. 
It shows, like so much work of its kind and of the series to 
which it belongs, that he had never been a collector in India 
and knew little of its physical features and all that that comprises. 
There is an absence of original matter, such as Dr. Jerdon, the 
Blanfords, Lydekker, Oates, Day, and others brought to bear on 
and embellished the history of the Mammals, Birds, and Fishes 
of India which they had collected and which had passed through 
their hands. 
It is easy to find fault, and it may appear I do so with Gude’s 
work. Iam only animated by the desire and striving to make the 
record of Geographical Distribution as correct as possible; thus 
under G. tenwispira, p. 3879, I notice all the errors of determination 
which Blanford, Theobald, Nevill, Beddome, and myself have per- 
petuated. I have to point out that these determinations were made 
40 to 60 years ago, much too long ago for such data to be reliable. 
I am able to say they were often made without sufficient material at 
hand, or on shells erroneously named in the first instance. I take, 
for example, G. baculina, p. 379, Khasi Hills (Godwin-Austen), 
evidently on the authority of Nevill in the * Hand-list,’ p. 170. 
It is a distinct species, which he did not notice; IL have named 
* J, A. 8. B, pt. i. 1881, p. 187, pl. v. fig. 19. 
