
1865.] 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, 
such 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. Streptawis Blanfordi and Pupina Blanfordi are 
also mentioned above, they being, I believe, varieties of S. Andama- 
nica, Bens., and P. artata, 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, 
T have retained it. On the other species I have nothing to add. 
In Mr. Theobald’s 1863 paper, he referred my Cyclophorus 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. 
IT 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 
Pieiffer, 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, 
