MOLLUSCA. 15 



3. HELICAKION STOLICZKANUS, n. sp., Figs. 19 21. 



Vitrina monticola of Reeve and Conchologia Indica, not Pfr. 

 (?) Vitrina sp., from Almora, Bens., J. A. S. B., VII, p. 21 4. 

 (?) Vitrina monticola of Benson in MSS., not of Pfr. 



This shell is a close ally of H. cassida, and might indeed be ranked as a smaller 

 variety, with less exsertcd whorls and with a rather differently coloured epidermis ; the close 

 relationship was noted as ahove by Benson, and is well shown by Reeve, figs. 10 and 11, and 

 by Hanley, pi. clii, figs. 1 4, who represent both species side by side, no doubt purposely. 

 A comparison of these figures with Pfeiffer's original description, as detailed here under the 

 next species, at once shows that the two belong to totally different sections of the genus- 

 I have discovered a very similar misunderstanding with Nanina petrosa, Hutton, originally 

 described from Mirzapur. On Benson informing Hutton that his Mirzapur 2V. petrosa was 

 only the Calcutta N. mtrinoides, the latter transferred his name of N. petrosa to an undescribed 

 Himalayan allied smaller form, the animal of which he knew to be distinct. Benson was wrong ; 

 Hutton's species from the Rajmahal Hills (Bhagalpur, Mirzapur, &c.), proves quite different, 

 both as regards shell and animal, from the Calcutta form, and of course retains its name N. 

 petrosa. It is well and correctly figured in the " Conchologia Indica," pi. Ixxxviii, figs. 7 and 

 10, where our common Calcutta N. mtrinoides is not represented at all. I think it very likely 

 something similar may have happened, causing the confusion of this Helicarion and the next 

 species ; some one may have pointed out that Pfeiffer's flat and depressed shell was only a 

 variety of Benson's H. scutella from Teria Ghat, whereupon the name of monticola was trans- 

 ferred to the other North- West form, which had previously not been distinguished by a separate 

 name from H. cassida, though probably the allied form from Almorah referred to by Benson 

 in the original description (J. A. S. B., VII, p. 214). Indeed from this passage I conclude 

 Benson's manuscript name of monticola really referred to this shell, and not to the species de- 

 scribed as such by Pfeiffer. This would account for this form being named monticola in Cuming's 

 collection, and hence figured for it by Reeve and Hanley ; Pfeiffer's actual type of monticola 

 should be looked for in the Cumingian collection, amongst the variety of Vitrina scutella from 

 the North- West Himalayas. Benson probably, when describing his Vitrina scutella, did 

 not compare it with Pfeiffer's monticola, because he assumed the latter to be his own true 

 manuscript monticola, and not the flat-whoiied, depressed shell Pfeiffer really described for 

 it, and which Benson considered (possibly correctly) to be a variety of his Teria Ghat 

 ncutella. 



Dr. Stoliczka found a single specimen at Tinali. I have not taken this specimen as 

 my type, but one of the common Naini Tal specimens, represented in most collections. 



Type from Naini Tal : diarn. 22, axis 8, alt. 13 ; apert. lat. 14^, alt. 12 mm. 



4. HELICARION MONTICOLA, Pfr. 



Vitrina monticola, Pfr., P. Z. S., 1848 (Landour, Almorah, &c.) 



Viirina scutella (pars), Bens., Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 1859, ser. 3, vol. iii, p. 188 (Khasi Hills 

 and Kashmir). 



Unfortunately, in his original description of H. sctitella, Benson does not say whether 

 he takes the Kh4si or Kashmir form for his type ; the two must, I believe, be specifically 

 separated. If, however, they should prove identical, the scutella of Benson will be a synonym 



