5S On the Generic Position of Bausons Helix liyba. 



so was the line of tlie 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 tine retractor 

 niusclc; while treating 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 thespermatophore 

 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 figureil 

 (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 

 ZonitidsB, the laterals being bicuspid, with the outer cusp 

 below the inner, becoming very small on tlie margin. 



On comparing these anatomical details with those of other 

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

 of the genus KhasieJla (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 ca3cum 

 retractoris penis of vidua becomes a close-wound coil in hyba, 

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



It is extremely interesting to tind such close resemblance 

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

 forms of shell as presented in hi/ha and indica ; differing so 

 widely, conchologically they would take their place in separate 

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

 sight considerable differences, but tlie variation becomes less 

 apparent when h/ba is compared with the sharply keeled 

 species of Khadella, such as climacterica, Bens., and Austeni, 

 W. T. Blanf. 



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



