GODWIN-AUSTEN : ON DAMAYANTTA, ELC. 315 
named, Pollonerai, I accept and consider to be the type of the sub- 
genus Collingea, though rather as a subgenus of Parmarion, and not of 
Microparmarion, a typical Javan genus, for this last I consider to be 
more appropriately another subgenus of Parmarion. I have very 
lately again examined the generative organs of both Pollonerav and 
Simrothi \types) at the Natural History Museum. For want of more 
material Simrothi must for the present remain in Jficroparmarion ; 
and next looking at the figures (4, 34, 35, 36, pl. 11) of the generative 
organs of Collinge’s Collingea Smithi I came to the conclusion he 
had a specimen of Jicroparmarion Pollonerac in hand, and not the 
Damayantia Smithi, as 1 understood that species in 1895, and under- 
stand it now. ‘This investigation has led to the notice of another 
genus formed by Mr. Collinge for the reception of Bornean slug-like 
molluses, viz. /sselentia (4, p. 805), and noting (p. 807) that the type 
of Isselentia globosa, Collinge, was to be seen in the Natural History 
Museum, I, with Mr. Edgar Smith’s kind aid, found a jar labelled 
Isselentia plicata, Collinge, containing two specimens from the Poeh 
Mountains, Sarawak. It bore the date 1895, 9, 18, and on looking up 
the entries of this period in the Museum Register, it corresponded to the 
presentation in that year by Mr. Everett of the three species previously 
noticed and examined by me. The jar contained two specimens, one from 
which the generative organs, etc., had been extracted, and one perfect 
specimen. I at once recognized these to be Damayantia Smithi, and 
a comparison with my drawings of that animal (3, pl. lxxin, figs. 1, 
la, 16) confirms me in the correctness of this identification. I give 
a drawing of one of these (Pl. XI, Figs. 2, 2a), and have extracted the 
radula, which is exactly like that of D. Smitha (Fig. 2c). These two 
specimens labelled Jsselentia plicata are, in fact, the typical Damayantia 
Smithi sent home by Everett, and they should be placed in jar No. 1, 
which has this title, with the shell I found in jar No. 3. 
Although labelled Jsselentia plicata, I believe these represent 
Mr. Collinge’s species Jsselentia globosa (4, p. 307). He says the 
differences are extremely small, ‘animal smaller, but not at all unlike 
I. plicata’’; further on, ‘‘ When recently examining these two specimens 
I felt inclined to refer them to J. plicata, but an examination of the 
generative organs shows that they exhibit some important differences ”’ 
(4, pl. ii, fig. 50). On searching for these differences in this figure 
I was struck by its wonderful similarity to (2) fig. 9, pl. xi, and on 
superimposing a tracing of this last upon it, it is absolutely the same 
in all its parts, with the exception of the penis; this organ in fig. 50 
is longer and of somewhat different outline, and the proportion of its 
length to the length of the amatorial organ differs in the two figures, 
in fig. 50 it seems too long. They may both, however, be compared 
with my drawing of the genitalia of Damayantia Smith, (3) pl. Lxxin, 
fies. 7, 7a, 7b, made in 1895, and more particularly to the form of the 
penis in figs. 7a, 76, and 10 by Mr. Collinge (2, pl. xi). 
I have already referred to changes of the soft parts produced in 
alcohol. Mr. Collinge in Jsselentia plicata shows in (4) pl.i, fig. 15, that 
the keel of the foot is crinkled up; this is seen as an uneven jagged 
edge in profile (4, figs. 13, 14), described as a wavy keel of a deep yellow 
