238 LAND AND FRESHWATER 
specimens (preserved in spirit) of a small form, the shell of which 
Iam unable to distinguish from typical Arakan specimens of Helic. 
venustum, only differing in apparently being of a smoother and more 
polished texture, and in the spire being a shade more distinctly 
convoluted; a single specimen of Helic. solidum from the Naga 
Hills is quite undistinguishable from the above Arakan specimens 
The figures in the ‘ Conch. Indica’ of the two forms are, however, so 
distinct, that the types will have to be re-examined.” Iam now 
able to do this, having received from Mr. Theobald two specimens of 
H. venustum (Plate LIX. figs. 5 &5a), which prove on comparison 
to be quite a different form gore my H. solidum, or even cacharica. 
Mr. Nevill had before him this last species from the Naga Hills, 
which I have since separated from the species from Hengdan Peak, 
on the Burrail Range. Dr. Anderson’s specimens are no doubt ver y 
like, as regards the shell, to the Naga-Hills form ; but I should doubt 
its being the same species, and ranging so far to the eastward, 
knowing as we do how very limited is ‘the range of the better known 
forms. The Yunnan shell I therefore must distinguish by the title 
G. ponsiensis (No. 32 of Nevill’s List). The single specimen from 
Nampura, Kakhyen Hills, is probably another local form, while the 
two specimens from Arakan, evidently not like typical venusta, but 
similar to Naga-Hill shells, require naming when a description of 
the animal is recorded. 
We next have some forms which can still be grouped in Girasia, 
but differing somewhat. The hinder portion of the foot is short. 
The shell rests in a more or less V-shaped depression below the 
ridge of the foot ; the shells more developed ; the shell-lobes reduced 
in size. The odontophore with much fewer teeth in the row. 
Subgenus Isycus, Heynemann. 
Ibycus, Heynem. Malakoz. Blatter, 1862, p. 142, pl. i. fig. 3. 
Original description:—‘ The only specimen not belonging to 
ANADENUS Seems to me to be also new, but unfortunately it was in 
such a condition, the back part and pieces of the mantle entirely 
wanting, that a diagnosis is impossible ; still the remaining part, 
although badly preserved, showed sufficiently that it did not belong 
to any known species. While the jaw by its prominent centre 
pointed to relationships with Limav, the regular and inner shell 
shows a completely different formation. Even the mantle-lobes 
show so pronounced a papillate surface that it probably did not 
possess the wavy rings of Limav. The mantle covers the fore half 
of the body, which is grown together with the sole as in Limaa ; it 
contains a curved, horny, brittle, transparent amber - coloured, 
strongly lustrous inner shell, with elegant rings of growth. (The 
