-_ 
78 LAND AND FRESHWATER 
Of several specimens brought to England by Mr. Benson in 1832 
one survived from December 1831, when it was captured in India, 
until the summer of 1833. 
The above description we find published again in the Zool. Journal, 
1834, vol. vy. p. 458, in a paper entitled “ Conchological Notices, 
chiefly relating to the Land and Freshwater Shells of the Gangetic 
Provinces of Hindoostan.” 
Under genus Nanina, Gray, and in footnote, we find it stated, ‘The 
peculiar form of the animal of this genus had long since induced me 
to regard it as constituting a distinct group, to which I had in my 
MSS. assigned the name of Tanychlamys; on submitting specimens, 
however, to the Zoological Society at one of its late meetings I find 
I have been anticipated by Mr. Gray, who had just previously 
proposed for it the name which I have adopted above.” 
He says that it is to be found in the Gangetic plain from Calcutta 
to Cawnpur, that he found it at Banda, in Bundelkund, that he had 
received it from the hill-fort of Callingar (Kalingar in north of same 
district), and also from the old fort at Rigmahal (Rajmahal?); he 
probably then had not noticed the slight differences in the local 
forms of this shell. 
In July 1834, one month previous to Benson’s exhibition of the 
shells at the August meeting of the Zoological Society, Mr. J. E. 
Gray had described the genus Nanrya, partly from the animals of 
several species and partly from the animal of a species which had 
been figured by General Hardwicke in 1797. This figure evidently 
represents the species common in Calcutta, with the mantle much 
paler than the rest of the body ; and this he erroneously identified as 
NV. vitrinoides, Desh., which is a distinct species from the Malay 
Archipelago, and is Macrochlamys indica, Bs. 
In the J. A. 8. B. pl. ii. p. 83 (Feb. 1832), Hutton describes the 
Mizapur shell, MW. petrosa, which he found at Tara, in the low hills 
near that place, and he gives a good description of the animal of 
Macrochlamys after the No. 3 Helix, which, in the list of shells at 
the end, is recorded as “* H. petrosa mihi.”’ He says, ‘‘ dark brown 
or blackish ; body elongate, with a hooked process on the extremity 
of the tail pointing backwards.” He mentions the “two narrow, 
flat, gradually pointed filaments or tentacula, which, when the ani- 
mal is in motion, are kept constantly playing over the surface of the 
shell ;” but there is a want of accuracy in the description, for he 
says they both proceed “from the right side of the animal.” To 
Hutton therefore, and not to Mr. Gray, belongs the credit, among 
English naturalists, of having first described this genus and noted 
the great difference between the European and Asiatic forms of 
Heliv as then constituted. 
But in 1829 Desmoulins had examined and described the animal 
of an Indian species (1. levipes, Miller), to which he gave the sub- 
generic title ArropHAnTA, from its similarity to Arion in possessing 
a mucous pore at the extremity of the foot; and he laid great 
stress on this anatomical point. Now had //. levipes been a dextral 
shell, with less marked characters of its own, the title Ariophanta 
