184 W. T. Blanford — Contrilulions to Indian Malacoloijy. [No. 4, 



Of the remaining species here described, tlie majority have been collec- 

 ted by Colonel Beddome in the hill-tracts of Southern India. Some of these 

 were sent to me as long as 9 or 10 years ago, others have been received more 

 recently. I feel that I owe many apologies to Col. Beddome and to the 

 other gentlemen, Dr. Anderson, Col. Evezard, and Col. Godwin- Austen, 

 vclio have kindly entrusted me with the description of their discoveries, for 

 leaving these so long unnoticed. 



The plates accompanying the present paper are unfortunately deficient 

 in many respects. Several species are not represented, and some of the repre- 

 sentations given are far from being good. The original di'awings were, in 

 all cases, excellent, but some of them may, after being kept for several years, 

 have hecome indistinct in parts, and as the lithographer had not the shells 

 for comparison, he may have misunderstood the details. The larger shells 

 represented in plate iii. are fairly well delineated, hut several of the small 

 forms in plate ii. are more or less faulty. 



The importance of a careful study of the anatomy in the different 

 forms of SelicidcB has already been mentioned. Very much remains to be 

 done before anything like a correct classification of the family can be prac- 

 ticable. That all the forms referred to Nanina (a name which has no 

 claim to recognition) must be separated from Helix is clear enough ; the 

 animals belong to different subfamilies at least, but it is by no means cei'- 

 tain how many real generic groups there are in the so-called Nanina. I 

 suspect that Ilacrochlamys, very possibly with some of the forms referred 

 by Stoliczka to Eotula* will have to be separated generically from another 

 group comprising the sections known as Hemipleeta and Arioplianta,vi\\\ch. 

 are very closely allied to each other, and which are probably congeneric 

 with X.esta and several other forms. For the present, I have simply refer- 

 red the species described to the sections to which they appear to belong, as 

 Stoliczka did, but I am by no means prepared to follow him in accepting 

 such sections as of generic rank. The difficulty is to determine what generic 

 name or names should be adopted. Nanina is utterly bad; it offends every 

 law ; the name had been used previously Hisso ;t the type is the same 

 as that of Benson's genus Macroclilaniys ; and the term is objectionable on 

 account of its signification. All this has been pointed out by Martens,^ 

 but still he and others employ the name because it has crept into use. 

 Now, in such difficult matters as these generic terms, unless rules are 

 strictly attended to, utter confusion must result, and undoubtedly it 

 has resulted. When, however, a search is made for a better found- 

 ed term then Nanina, endless difficulties are encountered. The ear- 



* These appear, however, to deserve distinction from true Hotula, see after, 

 t Sec Stoliczka, J. A. S. B., 1871, xl, pt. 2, p. 47. 



J Albers Keliceen, 2te Ausgabe, p. 46, where the S3'nonjTny is fully discussed. 



