140 Contributions to Indian Malacology. [No. 2, 
No. 8.—Unio ontvartus, Lea. Ganges valley. 
Lea, Trans. Ann. Phil. Soc. IV, 108, pl, 16, f. 38. 
Benson, J. A. 8. B. IV. 453. 
Kiister, Mart. and Chem., p. 244, pl. 82, f. 2. 
The locality given by Lea is Burrill river, India. Kiister, who 
appears to be indebted for all his Indian species described by Lea to 
Dr. von dem Busch, gives Burrill river, Indiana (!), North America, 
as the locality. Mr. Benson says—‘‘ It is widely distributed in the 
Gangetic region, and is most abundant in the Rohilkund streams.” 
The variety figured by Kuster differs from Lea’s type is being more 
inequilateral, much shorter anteriorly, and more obtuse posteriorly, 
and of a light green colour instead of pale olive. Indeed, it is by no 
means clear that the specimen figured is not a variety of U ceruleus. 
I do not know if there be such a river as the Burrill, but the locality 
for the original type is very probably the neighbourhood of the Burail 
Range, north of Cachar, as the shell was received by lea from a 
Dr. Burrough who collected extensively in Assam, and who supplied 
the original specimens, from which Hylobates Hoolock was described, 
to Dr. Harland.* This is not far from the localities whence the closely 
allied U. Nuttallianus, Lea, and U. involutus, Benson, were obtained. 
No. 9.—Unio Corrianus, Lea. Calcutta. 
Lea, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. V. 65, pl. 9, fig. 25. 
Kiister, Mart. and Chem., p. 229, pl. 77, fig. 5. 
Two completely distinct shells are figured by the two authorities 
above referred to. lLea’s original type is a young form of one of the 
common varieties of marginalis, approaching U. anodontina of la- 
marck; Kiister’s, on the contrary, is a form allied to U. c@ruleus, but 
thicker, and with broader hinge teeth than that species, so that it is 
more diverse from U. marginalis than even ceruleus is! Kister’s 
specimen was derived from Dr. von dem Busch, who, in this and 
other instances, appears to haye utterly confounded different forms. 
* See Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. IV. p 52. It 
is a disgrace to the science of England as represented in British India, and a 
lasting memorial of the disregard of natural history which has always been a 
characteristic of the British Government of India, that so remarkable an ani- 
mal as the Hoolock should have been first recognised by an American natu- 
ralist at so late a date as 1834. Had India belonged to France, the United 
States or Russia, the study of its fauna would not have been left to the 
unaided efforts of private individuals, 
