314 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
M. Simrothi; (6) the shell and animal of D. Smithi, but the generative 
organs were not found—such extremely small dissections have every 
chance of being lost, unless placed in separately labelled small glass tubes. 
The generative organs of JZ, Simroth?, on re-comparison, agree both with 
my drawings (3, pl. lxxiv, figs. 5, 5a) and Mr. Collinge’s (2, pl. xiii, 
figs. 32-34). The shell and what remains of the animal of Damayantia 
Smithi also agree well with my drawings (3, pl. Lxxiii, figs. 2, and 1, 
la, 1b respectively). The shell I recognized as the very same which 
I removed from the animal of that species. Most fortunately I have 
in my collection of radule (now in the Natural History Museum) 
the one taken from the typical specimen of D. Smithi (Pl. XI, Fig. 2c), 
and supposing the generative organs be set on one side, I maintain 
that no confusion of species has occurred. Mr. Collinge, at the top of 
(4) p. 804, says, regarding the species sent him originally by Mr. Smith, 
‘‘one of these Godwin-Austen figured (3, pl. xi, figs. 1-6) . . . 2” 
These figures inciude the animal and shell, but he omits to mention 
figs. 7, 8, and 12, viz., the jaw, radula, and calcareous dart respectively 
of the same animal I dissected; the first two, 7 and 8, are the most 
important characters in this question of identity, and alone dispose of 
the remainder of the above quoted sentence, ‘‘ which undoubtedly 
belongs to the genus Codlingea, Simroth.’”’ Having removed the 
species Smithi from Damayantia, I turn next to what Mr. Collinge 
writes on (4) p. 804, under its new position of Collingea Smithi; a few 
words of the original description of the animal in the Proc. Zool. Soc. 
are quoted in a footnote, and fault is found with my drawing of the 
animal of Damayantia Smithi (2, pl. xi, figs. 1, 2). It is put very 
bluntly, ‘‘the figure is wrong in showing this,” referring to a black 
streak on the side of the foot. Does Mr. Collinge really suppose the 
black streak in figs. 1, 16 (3), or figs 1, 2 (2), was put in by way of 
adornment? It would have avoided much contusion and all this 
writing, had Mr. Collinge looked over these Bornean species in the 
three jars with me, before creating new species and genera. The 
black streak cannot be eliminated in this way, for it occurs not only 
in the drawing but also in the description; neither can the radula 
(fig. 8), the jaw (fig. 7), nor the shell (fig. +), (2, pl. xi). All this is 
most important evidence that the species named after Mr. Edgar Smith 
in 1895 cannot certainly belong to the genus Collingea. In both the 
Bornean species it may be noted that the radula is not in the least like 
that of Damayantia Smithi. Simroth created the genus Collingea in 
August, 1897 (5), and made it a second genus of his Mcroparmarion 
eroup of the Malayan slug-like forms, further divided by him into 
two subgenera—(1) C. Strubelli of Java, (2) C. Pollonerai and 
C. Simrothi of Borneo—the only subgeneric distinction being a slight 
difference in the form of the mantle-lobes. The reasons for forming 
this genus distinct from Mcroparmarion are to be found in the above 
excellent paper by Professor Simroth. Unfortunately, he does not 
describe the subgenus in full, but brackets two species together, which 
on close inspection of the anatomy do not agree, more particularly 
in the form of the penis (vide 2, figs. 22-24 of Mlicroparmarion 
Pollonerai, and figs. 32-34, Microparmarion Simrothi). The first 
