MOLLUSCA OF INDIA. 79 
would include all those Indian species with simple neck-lobes and 
no tongue-like shell-lobes, which have been hitherto placed in 
Nanina. H. levipes is, however, a sinistral form, and related to a 
group all of this character. I do not myself set much value on it, 
unless it be supported by others. It is certainly very constant in 
some genera, but very inconstant in others, not affecting the anatomy 
in one single point; and it would have made classification much 
simpler had Ariophanta been adopted for all these species until placed 
in their respective subgeneric positions, restricting it eventually for 
levipes and its allies; and the subfamily ArropHantrin& would have 
better distinguished these Asiatic land-shells from the very different 
and distinct group Zonites of Montfort. 
Stoliczka adopts the title Macrochlamys in the J. A. 8. B. 1871, 
pp. 246, 247, and, after going through the record of it, says, “ It is, 
I think, tolerably clear that under the above name (i. e. indica) the 
Bengal species, usually recorded as vitrinoides, was meant. Conse- 
quently this species must be taken as the type of Macrochlamys, 
whether it be called vitrinoides or indica, for both, if different, are 
no doubt very closely allied.” 
In the Journ. Asiat. Soc. Beng. for 1881, p. 131, Mr. G. Nevill 
enters on the question of the priority of Nanina, Gray, over that of 
Macrochlamys, Benson, and rather favours the retention of the 
former in a wide sense, which I think quite unnecessary. 
The question of priority is not to be settled by Benson having 
admitted the validity of Gray’s genus over one of his own creation. 
This an author might do from a modest feeling not to put his own 
work forward before that of another naturalist; and the editor of 
the P. Z. 8. at the time appears to have substituted Gray’s title for 
Benson’s on p. 89, 1834, without reference to previous papers of 
the latter. This question is to be settled by the writings of the two 
individuals, and how they can be best interpreted ; 7. e. which of the 
generic titles is first found in print, and can be best and without any 
doubt ascribed to a single species also strictly identifiable. 
Although Benson in 1832 did not give a detailed description of 
Macrochlamys, yet the species is clearly indicated, and that a genus 
was necessary to receive it; and this can cause no confusion, for in 
1834 he proceeded to publish the same most minutely. Norshould 
Capt. T. Hutton’s writings be overlooked in the chain of evidence ; 
that officer and Mr. Benson worked together, corresponded, and 
exchanged specimens for years about this period *. We find Hutton 
describing a closely allied species of this genus in February 1832. 
It is evident throughout that Benson and Hutton had always the 
same species in view for the type of the genus Macrochlamys, and 
they knew its characters thoroughly. On the other hand, Gray’s 
knowledge was superficial, he selected no particular type, and 
his generic description of Nanina does not apply rigorously to 
* T possess a large number of pamphlets from different journals, sent by 
Benson to Hutton, with MS. notes and queries in some of them; these were 
kindly presented to me by the latter when he gave up collecting. What became 
of Benson’s own set and his valuable MS. notes I know not. 
