GODWIN-AUSTEN: ON DAMAYANTIA, ETC. 313 
species, and with Mr. Collinge’s description and drawing for D. carinata 
(4, p. 299, pl. ii, fig. 23). A portion of the vas deferens, including an 
immature e spermatophore, is also preserved (Fig. le). 
The characters of the odontophore and of the jaw (not described by 
Mr. Collinge) constitute very important points, agreeing as they do 
with the original description (2, p. 243) of those occurring in D. Smitha, 
and with the figures on (3) pl. lxxiii, figs. 5, 6, and the copies of them 
on (2) pl. xi, figs. 7, 8. These characters in the genus Damayantia at 
ouce separate it widely and conclusively from other associated slug- 
like species, which fall into the genus Parmarion and its subgeneric 
divisions, Microparmarion, Collingea, ete. 
Mr. Collinge writes (hp 297) :—‘* In 1895 (3), in conjunction 
with Lieut.-Col. H. H. codeine h cee I described a new species 
of Damayantia from Borneo, and two new species of Microparmarion, 
Simr, All three, however, were generically wrongly assigned. For 
the latter two Simroth (45) has constituted a new genus Collingea, and 
in this the former must now be placed.” I take exception to this con- 
clusion. 
Again (4, p. 303), under the genus Collingea, the following occurs:— 
“In 1895 (3) I described, in conjunction with Lieut.-Col. H. H. 
Godwin-Austen, a slug-like mollusc from the Poeh Mountains, Sarawak, 
to which the name Damayantia Smithi was given. At that time I had 
not seen Issel’s description (Z) and figures of D. dilecta, but Lieut.-Col. 
Godwin-Austen was of opinion that the specimens from the Poeh 
Mountains belonged to Issel’s genus. Having recently seen a specimen 
of D. dilecta and compared it with Issel’s description and figures, Z hare 
no hesitation in at once removing the specimen named D. Smithi from that 
genus. Through the kindness of Mr. Edgar A. Smith I have had the 
opportunity of examining this very interesting mollusc, and am now 
able to give an emended description of it and some further particulars 
respecting its internal structure.”” The conclusion indicated in italics 
is a somewhat hasty one to arrive at, and it seems to me there is here 
both confusion of species and ideas, due in the first place to our writing 
a joint paper, one of us in Birmingham, the other in Surrey, and never 
comparing together, then or’since, the material we were working at ; 
secondly, to the subsequent misplacing of those species in the bottles 
in the British Museum. Any resorting or any change of the original 
nomenclature, that might have become necessary, should have been 
made in concert and after due consultation and agreement. To satisfy 
myself I have lately, thanks to Mr. Edgar Smith, also looked over 
the material in question and found three jars labelled respectively :- 
No. 1. ‘*95-9-18 (sp. 5, 6,7). Damayantia Smithi.’’—This 255 
contained only one specimen of what I take to be Icroparmarion 
Simrothi, certainly not Damayantia. 
No. 2. ‘*95-9-18 (sp. 3, 4). Mveroparmarion Pollonerat.”’—This 
contained two specimens of this species, together with the generative 
organs. These agree with those drawn by me (J, pl. Ixxv, fig. 7), and 
also with Mr. Collinge’s drawings (2, pl. xiii, figs. 22 , 23). 
No. 8. ‘95-9-18 (spi elk 2). Micropar marion Simrothi.”—In 
this last was found, (a) the shell, animal, and generative organs of 
