1871.] F. Stoliczka — Notes on Terrestrial Mottusca. 247 



Macrochlamys (setting aside for the present the question whether 

 what is usually called vitrinoides be really that species or not). When 

 Mr. Benson first mentioned the name Macrochlamys in Journal 

 Asiatic Society, 1832, vol. I, p. 13, no one was able to assign a 

 signification to the name ; it was mentioned only passim. On p. 76 

 of the same volume, Mr. Benson quotes a Macrochlamys indicu ,* and 

 from the reference on pp. 350 and 35 If in vol. Y, of the same 

 Journal (183G) it is, I think, tolerably clear that under the above 

 name the Bengal species, usually recorded as vitrinoides, was meant. 

 Consequently this species must be taken as the type of Macrochla- 

 mys, whether it be called vitrinoides, or indicus, for both, if dif- 

 ferent, are no doubt very closely allied. Gray quoted^ vitrinoides, 

 Desh., as one of the species of his newly proposed genus JYanina, 

 but the name, having been previously generically used by Eisso, 

 cannot be adopted. 



From Mr. Benson's own record§ we know that a landshell called 

 Tanychlamys is identical with JYanina, but only in 1836, (vide note) 

 are we informed that Tanychlamys is the same thing as Macrochlamys, 

 and that the Bengal vitrinoides, Desh., is the type of the genus. 

 Thus there is no reason to be given why the latter generic name 

 should be superseded by the former. 



I have given the historical record in order to shew, that Ma- 

 crochlamys, if at all adopted as a generic denomination, must 

 be used for the group of which the so-called Bengal vitrinoides 

 (or rather M. indicus, Benson,) is the type, for if we do not 

 acknowledge it for that type, the name would lose all claim to 

 priority. Albers (Heliceen, 2nd edit. p. 57) distinctly quotes H. (JYa- 

 nina) vitrinoides, Desh., as the type of his genus Orobia, but Dr. 

 Semper (loc. cit. p. 18) again appears to ignore that fact, and to 

 retain Orobia in some other form. "When really correct definitions, 

 of genera have to be obtained, there is nothing very objectionable 

 in this course, though it cannot be recommended ; but whenever 

 type species of genera are mentioned, changes of those generic 

 significations should be made with particular care. 



* This name appears to have been entirely overlooked ; it will very likely 

 have to come now into use. Helix Indica, Pfr., is a Rotula. 



t This reference also shows that the subsequently used name Tanychlamijs 

 was applied to the same shell as was Macrochlamys. 



X Proo. Zool. Soc. Lon. 1834, p. 38. § Ibidem, p. 89. 



