182 W. T. Blanford — Contrihutions to Indian Ilalacologij. [No. 4, 



from being carried out. A considerable number of drawings bad been made 

 for the work, in the preparation of which I had agreed to join, but of these 

 drawings the most important, those representing the anatomy of the various 

 genera, are not, I fear, sufficiently clear for publication in their present 

 form, and notes to explain them are wanting. Some of the most useful 

 of Dr. Stoliczka's anatomical studies, those on the structure of various 

 Selicidce, have, however, I am much pleased to say, been continued by 

 Colonel Godwin-Austen with important results. 



The same decade has seen the completion of a series of illustrations, 

 many of them well executed, of Indian land and freshwater shells, the 

 ' Conchologia Indica' of Hanley and Theobald. The work is mainly due 

 to Mr. Hanley, upon whom the whole of the editorial labour has fallen, 

 Mr. Theobald having been absent in India during the publication. Whilst 

 it is impossible to avoid regretting that more complete illustrations of most 

 of the species have not been given, and that some additional details have 

 not been furnished in the accompanying letterpress,* it is unquestionable 

 that the plates are a valuable contribution to the knowledge of Indian Mol- 

 lusca. 



Two other rather important works on Indian land and freshwater 

 shells have been issued since the completion of the ' Conchologia Indica.' 

 One of these is Mr. Tlie(jbakrs ' Catalogue of the Land and Freshwater Shells 

 of British India'f, the other, Mr. G. Nevill's ' Hand-list of the MoUusca 

 in the Indian Museum, Calcutta', Part I. J The value and accuracy of the 

 first-named work are unfortunately seriously diminished by the great num- 

 ber of misprints, errors, and omissions, partly due to the author's absence 

 from Calcutta when the list was printed. Five quarto pages in small print 

 are filled with additions and corrections ; this list, however, is not only far 

 from being exhaustive, but contains some additions to the catalogue of 

 mif!takes.§ The ' Notes on the ' Conchologia Indica,' ' p. 50, contain some 

 important corrections of localities cited in that work. 



* One most important omission might yet perhaps be rectified. A large number 

 of the figures are from types, or from typical examples, and, in such cases, if the figure 

 is correct, there can be no question as to the determination of the species. But many 

 of the figures are from sbehs that, although doubtless in general correctly identified, 

 are not the specimens originally described, nor even in all cases from the same locality. 

 A list of the figures taken from actual types would be useful in cases of disputed iden- 

 tity. 



t Calcutta, 1 876, published by Thacker, Spink and Co. 

 X Calcutta, 1878. 



§ To justify my criticism of my friend Mr. Theobald's 'Catalogue', I wiUgive two 

 instances of the errors ib contains. At p. 15, the genus Omphalotropis (with two species 

 0. (UsUrmina, B. and 0. mirantiaca, Desh., is placed in the family Rissoidae, subfamily 

 Tomatiopsiiiae. At p. 43, the same genus Oiiqihalotropis (with but one species 0. dister- 

 inina, B.) is repeated as a member of the family Selicinidcc, subfamily Hydroccitinae. 



