140 Contributions to Indian Malacology. [No. 2, 



No. 8. — Unio olivarius, Lea. Granges valley. 



Lea, Trans. Ann. Phil. Soc. IV, 108, pi. 16, f. 38. 



Benson, J. A. S. B. IV. 453. 



Kuster, Mart, and Chem., p. 244, pi. 82, f. 2. 



The locality given by Lea is Burrill river, India. Kuster, who 

 appears to be indebted for all his Indian species described by Lea to 

 Dr. von clem 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 cceruleus. 

 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 Hylohates Hoolock was described, 

 to Dr. Harland.* This is not far from the localities whence the closely 

 allied U. NuttalUanus, Lea, and U. involutus 7 Benson, were obtained. 



No. 9. — Unio Corrianus, Lea. Calcutta. 

 Lea, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. V. 65, pi. 9, fig. 25. 

 Kuster, Mart, and Chem., p. 229, pi. 77, fig. 5. 



Two completely distinct shells are figured by the two authorities 

 above referred to. Lea's original type is a young form of one of the 

 common varieties of marginalis, approaching U. anodontina of La- 

 marck ; Kuster '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 77. marginalis than even cceruleus is ! Krister's 

 specimen was derived from Dr. von dem Busch, who, in this and 

 other instances, appears to have 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. 



