1875.] molluscan Genera Coelostele and Francesia, Sfc. 45 



Of these, Cacilianella Isseli* I believe, as I have already stated, to be 

 identical with Achatina balanus of Benson. Bulimus Samavaensis, B. 

 cerealis and B. vermiformis appear all to be varieties of the widely spread 

 and variable Pupa coznopicta, Hutton. This has already been indicated 

 in the case of B. cerealis and B. vermiformis by Morelet (Ann. Mus. Civ. 

 Ill, p. 201.) and Issel states that B. Samavaensis has also been identified 

 with B. ccenopictus by the same naturalist. f It is quite true that the 

 shells named by M. Paladilhe present well marked differences, and that the 

 circumstance of all being found in one place is opposed to the idea of their 

 being races of one species. At the same time it does not follow that all 

 these forms inhabit the same spot because their shells are carried down by 

 the same torrent and mingled in the flood deposits, and I have similarly 

 found two or three varieties together in various parts of India. I have 

 examined a large number of specimens from the drier parts of India, from 

 Upper Burma, Persia, and Abyssinia, and although there are several well 

 marked forms deserving distinctive names, I am inclined to believe that all 

 pass into each other. At the same time I am not prepared to admit with 

 M. Jickeli, as quoted by Issel, (Ann. Mus. Civ. IV, p. 528, note), that these 

 tropical shells are identical with the North American Pupa fallax of Say. 

 I have not access to Jickeli's original paper, and cannot say on what his 

 opinion is founded. Pupa fallax is found in various parts of the United 

 States, and the peristome is edentulous, and entirely destitute of the parietal 

 tooth which is found more or less developed close to the posterior angle of 

 the aperture in all forms of B. ccenopictus. Even should some shells of B. 

 ccenopictus be undistinguishable from some of P. fallax it would, I think 

 be well to compare the animals before uniting the two. 



Issel has pointed outj that Limicolaria Bourgignati belongs rather to 

 Stenogyra than to the genus to which M. Paladilhe assigned it. I am un- 

 able to distinguish it from a very common variety of Stenogyra ( Opeas) 

 gracilis (Bulimus gracilis, Hutton). M. Paladilhe considers it a peculiarly 

 African form, but Stenogyra gracilis is found not only in India proper but 

 in the Malay region. 



It is remarkable that amongst the shells found near Aden, no form of 

 Bulimus insularis (B.pullus, Gray) should have been comprised. One has 



* My attention was called to this and some of the other identifications given be- 

 low by my friend Mr. Gr. Nevill. 



t Ann. Mus. Civ. IV, p. 527. I cannot however find the species mentioned by 

 Morelet ; can M. Issel has mistaken Sennaarensis which Morelet does identify with P, 

 cwnopicta for Samavaensis ? 



% Ann. Mus. Civ. IV, p. 523, note. 



