104 Contributions to Indian Malacology. [No. 2, 



•although I probably possess the former, I am totally unable to tell, 

 from Mr. Theobald's account, to which of the numerous varieties of 

 H. rotatoria he has applied the name. Again, in this paper as in 

 former ones, manuscript names are introduced without any reference 

 to the fact of their being unpublished ; and, in two cases at least, I 

 believe I can shew that these names would never have appeared, had 

 they not been cited by Mr. Theobald. 



1st. H. unicincta was a manuscript name of Mr. Benson's for a shell 

 from TVestern India, described by Pfeiffer as H. propinqua. Mr. Ben- 

 son's name of course was never published, nor would it have seen the 

 light but for Mr. Theobald, who, in his paper in 1863, gave H. uni- 

 cincta as a species excluded from his list, without referring to the fact 

 that no such name existed except in manuscript. In the present 

 paper, H. propinqua, Pfr., is first given as a distinct species, and a 

 few lines further on quoted as a synonym of H. unicincta ; thus 

 giving precedence to the manuscript name, in opposition to the laws 

 of scientific nomenclature. 



2nd. H. anopleuris was a manuscript name given by Mr. Benson to 

 some shells sent by Mr. Theobald to England, I believe in 1860 or 

 1861. Mr. Theobald having kindly furnished me with specimens of 

 the same shell, I found, on comparing them with the types of H. orna- 

 tissima, Bens., of which I had a good series, (the shell was first col- 

 lected by my brother and myself and described from our specimens) 

 that the species were identical in every respect. I wrote to Mr. Ben- 

 son to tell him my opinion and on recomparing the forms, he found 

 that he had been misled by an abnormal peculiarity in the solitary 

 specimen of H. omatissima which he had retained. 



Another name mentioned by Mr. Theobald, Helix suhnissa, Bens., 

 is equally, so far as I am aware, undescribecl. 



In the group placed by Mr. Theobald next after that in which the 

 above shells are included, there is evidently a misprint, in the five 

 shells from H. infrendens, Grould, to H. semis, Bens., being classed 

 together. I have no doubt Mr. Theobald's intention was to class 

 together the three first, and, as a separate species, the two last.* 



* I am authorized by Mr. Theobald to notify that this error was due to a 

 misinterpretation of his manuscript. His intention was that suggested in the 

 text. Ed. 



