1880.] W. T. Blanforfl — Contrilufions to Indian Malacology. 



183 



Mr. Nevill's ' Hand-list of the Mollusca in the Indian Museum' is espe- 

 cially important for the large number of localities given. In some few- 

 instances (as in all such lists), some names will be found to require revision^ 

 and one or two instances will be given in the present paper. I have already* 

 expressed my reasons for dissenting in some respects from the classification 

 adopted. But it would be unfair to convey the impression that mistakes 

 are numerous, indeed, considering that Mr. Nevill had not the advantage of 

 correcting the proof-sheets himself, errors, so far as I have examined the 

 work critically, appear singularly few in number, and in many points the 

 classification adopted for the HelicidcB of India is a considerable improve- 

 ment on anything that had previously been published. At the same time, 

 there is, I believe, very much more to be done before these puzzling shells 

 are jDroperly arranged. f 



In the various works just mentioned, some species are quoted by names 

 given by me, at various times, in manuscript, but never published. Of 

 these forms I have given descriptions in the following pages. In several 

 instances, the shells have been figured in the ' Conchologia Indica.' One 

 form thus figured {Spiraculum mastersi), I have already described in this 

 Journal (vol. xlvi, 1877, pt. 2, p. 313), and two other species {Cremnocon- 

 c1ms fairhanlci and Corbicula iravadica) represented in the same work 

 require explanation. To facilitate reference, this is given below under the 

 name of each shell. 



This mistake is not corrected in tlie long list of ' Addenda et Corrigenda.' To 

 sliew how grave the error is, it is only necessary to mention that the Bissoidae are as 

 distinct from the Hdicinidae in organization as are the Littorinidae from the Neritidm, 

 and that Omphalotropis has heen clearly proved to belong to neither, but to the Cyclos- 

 tomidae (See Ann. Mag. & Nat. Hist. May, 1865, ser. 4, vol. iii, p. 341). Moreover, 

 the Indian locality of Omphalotropis aurantiaca had been shewn to be erroneous by 

 Hanley in the ' Conchologia Indica.' The error was long since suggested by Benson 

 (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Sept. 1851, ser. 2, vol. viii, p. 194). 



The other error that I shall notice occurs in tho ' Addenda et Corrigenda' and runs 

 thus: — " Page 15, «fW AcMELLA UYDiiiA, Godwin- Austen. North East Bengal." The 

 reference quoted is ' Minutes of the Trustees, Imperial Museum,' Calcutta, vol. vii, 

 p. 1G2. Now the minutes quoted are not published, but merely printed for record, 

 and the notices contained in them of additions to the Museum are mere lists of the names 

 that happen to be attached to specimens, inserted without any attempt at verification. 

 Precisely tho same is the case in the ' Register' at tho British Museum. Had Mr. 

 Theobald looked at the specimens, or had he made any enquiry about the shell, he 

 would, I think, have easily learned that no such name as ' Acmella hydi-ia' was ever 

 published, and that tho shell so-called, was, if I am not mistaken, Tricula montana. 



« Proc. A. S. B , 1879, p. 55. 



t For instance, I cannot help doubting whether any of the numerous forms refer- 

 red by fill'. Nevill to Mivrucyslls are really congeneric with U, urnatdUi the typo of the 

 genus. 



