I AND AND FRKSn WATER 



Much has hitel)' ap[)eared in the public press on " llesearch." 

 It' is of interest to put a case like this ou record (if only to show how 

 valuable scientific work and knowledge is lost for ever for want of 

 Government support.) To show how research is valued and 

 rewarded, Museums are built at an enormous known cost and filled 

 with specimens at an enormous unknown cost; then a proper 

 scientific Staff to deal with them is grudged, expenses are cut down, 

 and the record is never utilized. In this instance Nevill lost the 

 credit which many years of close study should have brought him — 

 not among those he had worked with, but among the general public. 

 I am glad I have the opportunity of bringing his labours to notice. 



The best account of the genus is to be found in the ' Manual of 

 Conchology,' ser. 2, xx. 1908, commencing p. 50 — the excellent 

 work of Dr. Henry A. Filsbry, with copious good illustrations, not 

 only of the shells, but of the sculpture and of the embryonic apex. 

 He says (p. 52) : — " From the purely conchological standpoint we 

 may be said to have an extensive knowledge of Ghssula, j'ct various 

 characters of the first importance have been neglected. The 

 emhryonic whorls of the tifjies must be all re-e.ramined, and their 

 sculpture described. Our ignorance of the embryonic sculpture of 

 many forms prevents any natural classification of the species. 

 The surface of the later whorls in all the species should be 

 examined under high power, since some species have a minute 

 sculpture not visible with an ordinary lens." Further on, he 

 adds : " No natural classification of the species of Olessula can be 

 attempted until the sculpture of the apices of the shells and 

 the anatomy of a number of representative species are studied." 

 Bearing this truly excellent advice in mind, I have endeavoured to 

 follow it when describing the many species of the genus now known 

 from the Eastern Frontier of India and Burma. 



Pilsbry* has given a good ri'sume of what has been done in this 

 genus and all that was known of the anatomy at that time. For 

 this last we are indebted to the research of Professor C. Semper, 

 who published, in his ' lleisen im Archipel der rhili])pinen," 1873, 

 p. 133, pi. xii. figs. 14-16 to pi. xvi. fig. 10, an anatomical descrip- 

 tion of Glessula orophila, Benson, said to have come from Madras, 

 but it might have been collected in any part of Peninsular India. 



It is unfortunate Semper 's determination is open to doubt : we 

 shall never know whether the shell of the animal he dissected was 

 compared with the type of Benson's oropldla, or what has become 

 of that type described by Kecve. The species is not recorded in the 

 ' C'onchologia Indica,' so Hanley never could have seen it. There 

 are no specimens assigned to G. orophila in either the William or 

 Henry Blanford collections. Beddorae records the species from the 

 Anamullay Hills; South Canara ; Goleonda Hills, east side of 

 the Madras Presidency, and says, " IMy Goleonda sjiecimons were 

 labelled by H. Nevill G. suhbrevis, but I cannot see how they 



* Man. Concli. ser. 2, xx. 190S, pi. xviii. 



