CONCHOLOGIA INDICA. 



45 



2. M. tigrina, v<ar. Hutton. 



W. Himalayah. 



3. M, pyramis, Benson, J. Asi. Soc. Beng. vol. 5 

 (1836), name for the Melania species B, in the 

 Glean. Science Calcutta, vol. 2 (1830), p. 22. 



Eiver Goomty. 

 The shell figured is from the collection of Benson. 

 We presume not to assert that it is distinct from either 

 tuberculata or tigiina, but it is important to indicate the 

 exact type. 



4. M. pyrainis, var. — M. ad.spersa, Troschel, Wiegm. 

 Archiv. Naturg. 1837, p. 175, probably. 



Shan States. 

 The M. adspersa of Philippi (Abbild. N. Conch, 

 vol. 3, p. 58, Melan. pi. 5, f. 5, 6) said by Brot to be 

 identical with the M. flammigera of the same work 

 (Melan. pi. 3, f. 11) does not equally suit our variable 

 species. Whether Philippi's specimens come from the 

 Ganges, as stated, may well be doubted. 



5. M. Hanleyi, Godwin-Austen, Free. Zool. Soc. 

 1872, p. 514, pi. 30, f. 2 (as Melanoides). 



Diyung River, Cachar Hills. 

 Allied to the next, but the prickles are much more 

 numerous. 



6. M. Menkiana, Lea, Obs. Unio, vol. 4, p. 24, for 

 M. plicata, Lea, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. (and Obs. 

 Unio, vol. 2, p. 20), pi. 23, f. 95 (not of Menke, 

 Synops. 1830). 



Khersasip, N. Cachar. 

 This rare shell may be easily distinguished from the 

 spinous forms of variabilis by the absence of those 

 coarse sulci which gird the base of the latter. It is not 

 the plicata of Reeve's figure, although two of the three 

 specimens in Cuming's collection are certainly Indian, 

 and not as stated from New Granada. It should be 

 noticed that Lea's figure was taken from a large 

 specimen with a cut-down lip, but all doubt as to its 

 identity is removed by the description. The M. spinosa 

 of Benson in Hanley's Conchological Miscellany (Mel. 

 pi. 1, f 7) should rather have been referred to this 

 than to variabilis. *, y . , ii / > 



7 M. soatwai var. spinulosa. ^^,<i^^ S^.^ct 



Ceylon. (ZJ . }, .17/1 Pf, Ifr./- i 



The shells represented in our figures 7 and 10, are 

 both called (but not described as) M. spinulosa by 

 Indian conchologists ; yet neither can be positively 

 afiiliated to the Lamarckian species from Timor de- 

 lineated in Delessert'a folio. 



8, 9. M. jugicostis, Benson's MS. 

 Tenasserim River. 



10. M. acanthica of Dohrn, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1858, as 



of Lea (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1850, p. 194). 



Ceylon. 



The identity of this Melania (named from Dohrn's 



type, now in the British Museum) with Lea's species 



from the Philippine Islands, may possibly be questioned. 



PLATE CXI. 



HELIX. 



See previous plates xiii to xvi, xxv to xx.xii, 1 to 

 Lxiv, Ixxxiii to xc. 



1. H- Skinneri, Reeve, Conch. Icon. Helix, f. 

 1387.— Pfeif. Mon. HeUc. vol. 4, p. 219. 



Ceylon. 



2, 3. H. undosa, var. Blanford, J. Asi. Soc. Beng. 



1865 (vol. 34), p. 68: Cont. Mai. pt. 5 (as 

 Nanina). 



Shan Hills E. of Ava. 

 The original types (which we had not seen) were 

 much more shagreened, and less wrinkled than this 

 specimen. 



4, 7. H. ganoma, Pfeifl'er, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1853, 

 p. 124: Mon. Helic. vol. 4, p. 22. — Reeve, Conch. 

 Icon. Helix, f 1267.— H. Juliana, Pfeif. in Kust. 

 ed. Chem. Helix, pi. 33, f 15. 



Ceylon. 

 Very near the common and variable .Juliana of Gray 

 (rosacea of Sowerby's description in Beechey) to 

 which PfeifEer preferentially refers the Dufourei of 

 Grateloup (changed from citrinoides, Grat.) in the 

 Act. Lin. Bordeaux, vol. 11, p. 407, pi. 1, f. 2. 



5. H. bajadera, Pfeiffer, Mon. Helic. vol. 3, p. 52 ; 

 vol. 4, p. 250. — Reeve, Conch. Icon. Helix, f. 388. 



Bwugak VS'tJkXox^'i-'.^n.'^ . 



C. H. intumescens, Blanford, J. Asi. Soc. Beng. 



1866 (vol. 36), p. 33 : Cont. Mai. pt. 6 (as Nanina, 

 section Ariophanta). — Pfeif Mon. Helic. vol. 5, p. 

 321. 



Mahableshwar, W. Ghats of Hindostan. 



