1805.] Contributions to Indian Malacology. 105 



As regards the new species described, Limax viridis, if it has no 

 internal shell, and none is mentioned, can scarcely be a Limax. The 

 characters given are mostly unimportant, while essential characters, 

 snch as the position of the mantle and breathing pore, surface of the 

 mantle and body, carination or roundness of the back, form of the 

 jaw and lingual teeth, are . omitted. What advantage is gained by 

 publishing names for a genus and two species of slugs, of which 

 Mr. Theobald has unfortunately no notes, is not clear. Vitrina Pegu- 

 ensis is the shell referred to above as undoubtedly a well marked 

 and distinct species. Streptaxis Blanfordi and Pupina Blanfordi are 

 also mentioned above, they being, I believe, varieties of S. Andama- 

 nica, Bens., and P. a/rtata, Bens., respectively. Streptaxis Burmanica 

 I have described above, and as my description is more detailed, and 

 taken from a better and more typical specimen than Mr. Theobald's, 

 I have retained it. On the other species I have nothing to add. 



In Mr. Theobald's 1863 paper, he referred my Cycloplwrus patens, 

 as I have before stated, to C. fulguratus. I can scarcely believe that 

 he is now serious in proposing to unite these shells, because one is 

 scarce and the other abundant, although that is the sole reason assign- 

 ed. Even in this point, however, Mr. Theobald is not quite correct. 

 I have found C. patens in some places the more common shell of the 

 two. 



On the question of the restriction of the genus Nanina, I can only 

 say that Mr. Theobald's ideas are totally at variance with those of 

 Pfeiffer, Adams, Gray, Albers, and other authorities. On the other 

 hand he is probably correct in his opinion that H. pansa and some 

 other shells do not belong to the section Macrochlamys of Benson, 

 with which I had classed them. 



