140 ZOSVJCIBJE. 



229. Macrochlamys ? atoma, Blf. {Fairhank, MS.) P. Z. S. 1904, ii, 

 p. 443, pi. 25, %. 6. 



Shell openly perforate, depressed, discoidal, rather solid, smooth, 

 glassy, longitudinally (spirally) striated above and beneath under 

 the microscope with regular, parallel, subdistant, impressed lines, 

 whitish horny ; spire very low, almost flat, suture impressed ; 

 whorls 3^, regularly increasing, convex above, the last not 

 descending, rounded at the periphery, flatly convex beneath ; 

 aperture slightly oblique, lunate ; peristome thin, upper and basal 

 margins moderately arcuate, columellar margin very oblique, almost 

 horizontal, not reflected. 



Major diatu. 1*5, min. 1-2, height O'G mm. 



Hah. Godavari Valley. I have obtained specimens from Paitan 

 near Ahmednagar to below the first barrier at Dumagudlon, also 

 in the Wardha and Penganga valleys. Found commonly with 

 other shells amongst the debris deposited by river-floods and 

 marking their highest level. I believe I also obtained this shell in 

 the Nerbudda Valley. All specimens obtained were dead and 

 usually milky white. 



[Appendix to Macrochlamys. 



No. 116 (p. 79). Macrochlamys vesicula, Bs., should be vesicula, 

 Hutton. 



It is impossible now to ascertain on what shell Mr. Benson 

 based his first description of this species ; he believed it had a 

 Avide geographical range. Unfortunately, the exact locality of 

 the shell Ur. Blanford has described is not specified, nor is it now 

 to be found among his shells. The Murree specimens (p. 79) are 

 distinct. 



The If. vesicula of Hutton, 1837, was certainly Himalayan; he 

 speaks of it as occurring from Monee Marjora, on edge of the 

 plains, to Simla and the forest of Mahasu, 10,000 feet. He and 

 Benson gave it an even greater range, as Dr. Blanford explains, 

 p. 80. Thus it was that in 1852, fifteen years later, we find him 

 giving an amended description of a shell he found at Soti Durga, 

 at head of the Gangetic Delta, under the name H. vesicula. The 

 typical specimens are in the McAndrew Collection at Cambridge, 

 and now before me, marked Himalaya : but it is not the original 

 label, these were all destroyed, and fresh substituted by McAndrew. 

 These shells are unmistakably from Lower Bengal, and I can see 

 nothing to distinguish them from 31. suhjecta of Eajmahal. 



The two species from between Neemuch and Mhow, recorded 

 by Captain Hutton as Nos. 28 & 29, J. A. S. B. 1834, pp. 520-21, 

 and of which he gives descriptions of the animals (sufficiently good 

 to distinguish tliem when some one finds them again), cannot 



