58 On the Generic Position of Benson s Helix hyba. 



so was the line of the prostate ; but lying nearly parallel to 

 this I observed a long narrow ribbon — no doubt a duct — lying 

 on the surface of the jelly-like oviduct, of a hard nature and 

 ochraceous in colour, clearly pointed and with a fine retractor 

 muscle^ while floating free among the parts of the genitalia 

 was a similar-sized duct with a swollen open end, where it 

 had evidently broken away. This may be an accessory gland 

 of some kind given off from the free oviduct or base of the 

 spermatheca. It might very easily have been set down as a 

 spermatophore, but fortunately in this case the spermatophore 

 of this species is before me, and narrows its possible function 

 and connexion with the genitalia considerably. We must 

 wait for more material to clear up this point. 



The second specimen, the shell of which is here figured 

 (p. 57), I do not like to destroy, as the species would appear 

 to be so rare. 



The jaw is strong and solid, slightly arched into a central 

 projection. 



The radula has the formula 



18 . 2 . 9 . 1 . 9 . 2 . 18 



29 . 1 . 29. 



The teeth are of the usual form in so many genera of the 

 Zonitidae, the laterals being bicuspid, with the outer cusp 

 below the inner, becoming very small on the margin. 



On comparing these anatomical details with those of other 

 Indian species, I find there is a remarkable similarity to those 

 of the genus Khasiella (Godwin-Austen, Moll. Ind. vol. ii. 

 p. 129, pi. c. figs. 1-5 d) as seen in the type species vidua, 

 W. T. Blanf. There is (1) the same small obscure right 

 shell-lobe ; (2) same form of foot and mucous gland; (3) the 

 jaw and radula are precisely alike; (4) the generative organs 

 differ in no appreciable way, merely that the short free caecum 

 retractoris penis of vidua becomes a close-wound coil in hyha^ 

 and is thus similar to the same part in Macrochlamys indica. 



It is extremely interesting to find such close resemblance 

 in the anatomy of two land-molluscs with such very distinct 

 forms of shell as presented in hyba and indica; differing so 

 wndely, conchologically they would take their place in separate 

 genera. The shells of vidua and hyba also present at first 

 sight considerable differences, but the variation becomes less 

 apparent when hyba is compared with the sharply keeled 

 species of Khasiella^ such as cUmacterica, Bens., and Austeni, 

 W. T. Blanf. 



I think I am right in considering //. hyba by its anatomy to 



