252 LAND AND FRESHWATER 
It is, I think, clearly a species descended from H. monticola, and 
modified to meet the climatal conditions of the Jawi valley, below 
Chineni, where the winter cold and summer heat are both more 
intense than is suitable for monticola on the one hand, or ligulata on 
the other.” I quite agree with Mr. Theobald as to this being a dwarf 
variety of monticola, which he found in great numbers and of large 
size in the damper valley of the Chenab, not many miles away. In 
the dry, hot sandstone hills near Udampur it could not attain to a 
great size. It is not likely to have any relationship to H. ligulata, 
a form from Peninsular India. 
Another species of this genus is possibly :— 
Hetix aneExica, Pfr. 
Helix angelica, Pfr. P. Z.S. 1856, p. 33 (Panjab); Pfr. Mon. 
Helic. vol. iv. p. 123; id. Novit. Conch. i. p. 76, pl. xxi. f. 5-6. 
Macrochlamys (sec. A) angelica, Pfr. Conch. Ind. p. 36, pl. lxxxvi. 
f.5 & 6; Theob. Cat. Suppl. p. 17. 
Nanina (Bensonia) angelica, Nev. Hand-list, p.49; id. Yark. 
Mission, Moll. p. 18. 
If, as Mr. Nevill writes, angelica is allied to splendens, it cannot 
be put into Bensonia. The animal of WM. splendens is quite distinct. 
Oxyres (BrensonrA) convexa, Reeve. 
Helix convexa, Conch. Icon. Hel. pl. 127. f. 762, for H. monticola ; 
Reeve, Pfr. Mon. Hel. vol. iv. Addenda, p. 636; Reeve, Han. & 
Theob. Conch. Ind. p. 36, pl. Ixxxv. f. 1-4; Kust. ed. Chemn. Hel. 
pl. clx. f. 3-5. 
Hemiplecta (see. C) monticola, Hutton, convera, Reeve (juv.), 
Theob. Cat. Supp. p. 22. 
A good deal of confusion regarding this species is evident, and I 
think has arisen from Hutton’s habit of transferring a name to 
another species when he found it preoccupied. I have this species 
in my collection (No. 54 of my note-book) giving Hutton’s identifi- 
cation as monticola, dwarf variety, in pencil, in ink on the side con- 
veviuscula (perhaps the origin of Reeve’s name) ; monticola appears 
on the label, altered some years after to convewa, Reeve. N. labiata 
was his identification of the common large Mussoorie form, showing 
that he accepted Pfeiffer’s name for it, and not his own monticola— 
the Simla species—and considered the species conveva a dwarf form 
of the last *. I collected at Mussoorie for many months and never 
found convexa there, while it was most abundant on the Nagtiba 
Ranges to the north, and which are higher. I thus described it at 
the time :—* Shell of a pale brown-pink hue, with irregular dark 
mottlings ; peristome pink edged. 
“Animal light brownish green, brown near head; _ tentacles 
greenish grey. Foot rather short. Very plentiful under old logs 
at 9000 feet.” 
* The young specimens which Hutton noted at Liti were no doubt convewa. 
