MOT.LUSCA OF INDTV. 



fliffer.'' Nevill, I think, only saw young examples ; Eeeve's figure 

 copied by Nevill (i. e. G. Nevill), is good. 



Geoffrey Nevill, in a paper on new or little-known MoUusca of 

 the Indo-Malayan Fauna *, gives a description of the shell. He 

 writes, under Stenogyra (Olessula) orophila, Benson MS.: — 

 " Reeve, Conch. Icon. 1850, fig. 105, anfr. 7, long. 14 mill., as 

 Achatinii orophila, Nilgiris and Colombo ; Jide Pfr., = his 

 A. eeylanica. I give a copy of Keeve's original magnified 

 figure" of his A. orophila, as I am by no means convinced 

 Dr. Pfeifi'er is right in uniting it to his A. ceiflanica ; to judge from 

 the figures, I should say they were quite distinct species. It may be 

 that Eeeve confused two distinct forms — the one figured (probably 

 from the Nilgiris) a good and distinct species, the other from 

 Ceylon a mere variety of St. eeylanica which may have been sent 

 or shown to Dr. PfeifFer as A. orophila and caused him to unite 

 the two species. I have not myself seen any species of the group, 

 St. nitens, eei/lanica, punctogallana, etc., from Continental India." 



Semper shows all the interesting details of the genitalia of his 

 O. orophila, especially what he terms the flagellum, which is of 

 very peculiar form, elongate and comb-like, a character thus 

 typical of the genus. It is, I consider, the sac in which the 

 spermatophore is developed. In the teeth of the radula the shape 

 of the marginals is not given. 



The genus, as recently as 1914, has been treated by Mr. G. K. 

 Gude in the 'Fauna of British India.' He approached it with 

 a great knowledge of conchology, bibliography, and especially 

 synonymy — the last most useful to workers, but unattractive. 

 They have to thank Mr. Gude for undertaking such labour. 

 It shows, like so much work of its kind and of the series to 

 which it belongs, that he had never been a collector in India 

 and knew little of its physical features and all that that comprises. 

 There is an absence of original matter, such as Dr. Jerdon, the 

 Blanfords, Lydekker, Oates, Day, and others brought to bear on 

 and embellished the history of the Mammals, Birds, and Fishes 

 of India which they had collected and which had passed through 

 their hands. 



It is easy to find fault, and it may appear I do so with Gude's 

 work. I am only animated by the desire and striving to make the 

 record of Geographical Distribution as correct as possible ; thus 

 under O. tennispira, p. 379, 1 notice all the errors of determination 

 which Blanford, Theobald, Nevill, Beddome, and myself have per- 

 petuated. I have to point out that these determinations were made 

 40 to 60 years ago, much too long ago for such data to be reliable. 

 I am able to say they were often made without sufficient material at 

 hand, or on shells erroneously named in the first instance. I tnke, 

 for example, O. baculiiut, p. 379, Khasi Hills {Godwin- Avsten), 

 evidently on the authority of Nevill in the '• Hand-list,' p. 170. 

 It is a distinct species, which he did not notice ; I have named 



» J. A. S. B. pt. i, 1881. p. 137, pi. V. fig. 19. 



