OF SOUTHERN INDIA. 271 
4. Littorinella,* Braun, is considered by H. and A. Adams as identical with 
the last, but not so by Stimpson. 
5. Amnicola, Gould and Hald., 1839; Genera I, p. 336. See also Frauenfeld’s 
list of Paludina, Verh. Zool. bot. Gesells., Wien, 1864, Vol. XIV, p. 561, etc. 
6. Gabbia, Tryon (Am. Journ. Conch. I, p. 220,) is like Ammnicola, but has 
a calcareous, paucispiral operculum. 
7. Tricula, Bens., based upon a fresh-water species, Z. montana, from the 
Hymalayas. The shell is thin as in Zymnea, but the aperture exactly similar 
to Hydrobia. 
8. Pyrgula, Christ and Jan., with the whorls strongly carinated. 
9. Paludestrina, D’Orb., has been usually regarded as identical with Litho- 
glyphus, Muhlf., but Stimpson considers them as distinct. 
10. Tryonia, Stimpson, with transversally ribbed whorls. 
11. Pomatopyrgus, Stimps., with a conical shell and the whorls ornamented 
with spinous tuberculations. 
Stimpson further quotes in this sub-family Cochliopa, Stimps.; Gillia, Stimps. ; 
Somatogyrus, Gill; Lithoglyphus, Mihlf.; Flwminicola, Stimps. With the excep- 
tion of Lithoglyphus, which we have for some obvious reasons placed in the family 
Lirrorinip#, we are personally not acquainted with any species of these last 
named genera. From the general accounts given, we would prefer to classify 
them in the ZLurrorrwipx, with which both the form and structure of the shells, 
and also the dentition, so far as it has been made known, seem better to 
agree. 
We are equally uncertain how far we could be justified in placing in this 
sub-family the genus Moitesseria, Bourguignat, the shell of which resembles 
Hydrobia, but has the outer lip provided with a notch, resembling that of Chittia. 
It is therefore possible, that the genus belongs to the rruvwcarzzzinz. Likewise 
uncertain is the position of Poladilhia, Bour guignat, which has a similar shell. 
More correct appears to us the classification of the following genus which 
ought not to be excluded from the Rzssorpz, though it may also be advantageously 
placed in the next sub-family. 
12. Paludinetla, Pfeiffer, 1841, (Genera, IT, p. 315). Frauenfeld (Verh. Zool. 
bot. Ges. Wien, 1863, XIII, p. 199), opposes H. and A. Adams’ classification 
of this genus at the end of all the NeuroBRancuiaA. He says that, so far at least as 
the fresh-water species are concerned, they are by no means amphibious in 
their habits, for he observed a large number of species which never left the water. 
There are, however, several species known,—apparently not generically different 
from other Paludinelle,—which are generally only found in moist places, though 
always near the water. Frauenfeld enumerates 28 species of Pualudinella, the 
greater number of which are found in Southern Europe. 
* Diala has been applied by A. Adams (Ann. Mag. 1861, VIII, p. 242,) to a small marine shell, resembling 
in form a Hydrobia, but with a slight insinuation in front of the aperture. It may probably be better classed 
next to Alaba in the sub-family zi7l0Piva, (fam. PLANAXIDZ), 
