MOLLUSCA OF INDIA. 235 
The animal was thus described by me in my note-book of 1863 
when at Mussoorie, where it is abundant during the rains, in suitable 
places :— 
Animal long, too large for complete retraction into shell, which 
is further from the head than tail; mantle reflected over the margin 
of the shell. It would appear to be very similar to A. scwtella, but 
I have not yet obtained the species in spirit from the original 
locality, and I am therefore not certain to what extent it differs. 
Original description by Pfeiffer :—‘‘ Vitrina. J'esta depressa, tenui, 
striatula, nitida, pellucida, lutescenti-cornea; spira plana, medio via 
prominula; sutura leviter impressa ; anfractibus 4, celeriter acere- 
scentibus ; planiusculis, ultimo depresso, non descendente ; apertura 
obliqua, rotundato-lunari ; peristomate simplice, marginibus conni- 
ventibus, callo tenuissimo junctis, supero antrorsum, arcuato-dilatato, 
columellart cwm basalt angulum obtusum formante, 
“Diam. 18, alt. 74 mill. 
“ From Bengal, Landour, Himalaya, Almorah.” 
The shells from the Hill Station of Mussoorie, and Landour at its 
eastern end, are olivaceous, with spire more or less depressedly 
conoid; suture shallow ; whorls 5; aperture ovate; columellar 
margin oblique. 
Largest specimen: major diam. 27:0, min. 21°0, alt. axis 10-0, 
body-whorl 14-0 mm. 
The four localities given above by Pfeiffer in sequence might 
puzzle some people not well versed in Indian geography. The two 
definite localities, Landour and Almorah, leave the exact habitat 
of the typical shell in doubt, and they are 100 miles apart. Almorah 
shells of this group that I have do not compare with those from 
Mussoorie. 
Considerable confusion exists with regard to monticola, cassida, 
and scutella, and the localities in which they were originally collected. 
I think I may be able to clear this up, to a certain extent, having 
had the advantage of naming and comparing shells now in my col- 
lection, at the time they were collected by me at Mussoorie, with 
those in Captain Hutton’s collection, and that officer well knew the 
shells he and Benson had described together. There can be no doubt 
that the large Helicarion-like snail of Mussoorie and Landour is 
monticola. 
It therefore does not much signify what shell Pfeiffer described 
out of the Cuming collection, for it is impossible now to discover 
the identical type shell in the British Museum, for there are several 
specimens placed together under this title monticola. Nor do we 
arrive at any clear decision on comparing the figures of Hanley and 
Reeve; the first is taken from a shell in the Beason collection, and 
this cannot be traced, because the shells that have been fieured are 
not marked, and Mr. Hanley sometimes selected shells for figuring 
from Benson's collection, sometimes from his own, from specimens 
sent home to him from India by Mr. Theobald from localities other 
than the original. These very similar shell forms from Burmah, Assam, 
and the N.W. Himalayas have got thus very much muddled up. 
