1885.] 0. F. V. Mollendorff — Ja]ianeso Land and Freshwater Shells. 59 



Explanation of Plate I. 

 Fig. 1. Cyrtophium calamicola, n. sp., drawn to scale, x 44. 



2. The same in its tube, in the act of swimming, x 18. 



3. Portion of an unfinished tube showing a vegetable membrane lined at 



one end with opaque silk-like fibres, x 200 (about). 



4. Small portion of a transverse section of a tube, x 200 (about). 



5. A mandible, x 340. 



6. 1st and 2nd maxillae, x 170. 



7. Maxillipedes, x 170. 



8. Subchela of third thoracic appendages, showing the peculiar teeth 



of the dactylopodite and the glandular body in the propodite, x 300 

 (about). 



9. One of the anterior abdominal appendages, x 44. 



10. The three terminal abdominal appendages, with telson, from above, 

 X 142. 



VI. — Notes on Japanese Land and Freshtoater Molluscs, — By O. F. vON 

 MoLLENDORFF, Ph. D. G OTYimunicated hy the Natural History 

 Secretary. 



[Received April 3rd ;— Read May 6th, 1885.] 



The following notes are based cliiefly on a collection made by Dr. 

 John Anderson during the year 1884 and sent by him to Deputy Surgeon 

 General Hungerford and myself for classification. I take this opportu- 

 nity to publish some new species formerly discovered by Messrs. Hunger- 

 ford and Eastlake, and to give some corrections to my former paper on 

 Japanese Glausilia published in this Journal (Vol. LI, Pt. II, 1882) . 



1. ISTanina japonica, n. sp. 



Testa depresso-glohosa, semiohtecte perforata^ acute carmata, superne 

 striis curvatis transversis costulifor^inihus distantihus sculpta, subtus 

 laevigata, nitida, tenuis, subpellucida, flavescens ; anfr. 6 fere plani, 

 ultiinus non descendens, basi inflatus, apertura obliqua, lunaris, peristoma 

 rectum, acutum, margine columellari ad perforationem reflexo. 



Diam. llf , alt. 6J mill. 



Hab. Specimen unicum ad Sengoku legit cl. Dr. Anderson. 



The first Nanina known from Japan ; I am not sure about its sub- 

 genus, which can hardly be ascertained without examining the animal. 

 The nearest relation is apparently my N. eastlaheana from Fuchow in 

 China (Jahrb. d. Mai. Ges. 1882, 371), which is somewhat larger and 

 flatter. I think both species should be classed with N. indica, Pfr., 

 which G. Nevill (Handl. Moll. Ind. Mus, 1878, 27) has under " subgenus 

 doubtful," whilst Pfeiifer considers it to be a carinate Macrochlamys. 



Another Nanina (Macrochlamys ?, Hemiplecta ?) at least 24 mill. 



