192 W. T. BlanFord — Contributions to Indian Malacology. [No. 4, 



genitalorgans a cylindrical female supplementary gland (Anhangsdriise) with 

 a cartilaginous point {analogous to the dart?) ; on the vas deferens (Samen- 

 leiter) a closed appendage, in which calcareous concretions are formed, and a 

 flagellum. 



The odontopbore is not noticed in the generic description. In E. suh- 

 opaca, the number of teeth in each cross-row is about 100, central tooth 

 tricuspid, the neighbouring laterals 12 in number distinctly bicuspid, from 

 the 13th to the 21th almost without a trace of the little lateral point, which, 

 however, reappears in the outer laterals. JEiiplecta belongs to Semper's 

 subdivision Ceratopliora with a horn-like lobe above the caudal gland, and 

 the sole of the foot divided into a central and two lateral regions as in 

 JKacrochlamys (and Stenopus). 



In the characters of both shell and animal, so far as we know the 

 latter, there is a remarkable resemblance between E. subopaca and .E. 

 vidua. The connection between E. vidua and E. climacterica has already 

 been noticed, and in the latter the odontophore (of which Col. Godwin- 

 Austen has kindly furnished me with notes and drawings) agrees very 

 closely with that of E. subopaca. The following is a description of the 

 teeth in E. climacterica : — 



" Median tooth tricuspid, the central point very long, the lateral cusps 

 very small. The first 14 laterals are long and broad with a single short 

 small cusp on the lower outer margin, the 25 outermost are long narrow, 

 curvilinear, bicuspid, the outer point the shorter, being less than half as 

 long as the inner. Jaw slightly curved, the front edge a little convex." 



The number of teeth in a row is apparently 79. A sketch shews tliat 

 the form of both central tooth and laterals is very similar to that in E. 

 subojjaca. 



Euplecta is by Semper classed apart from Rotula. The animal of the 

 type of this latter genus {H. detecta, from Bourbon) is still unknown. Sem- 

 per has described the anatomy of two very different species, and there is no 

 proof that they are congeneric. It is also extremely doubtful whether, of 

 the forms referred to Motula by Stoliczka,* any belong really to the section ; 

 and I am disposed to believe that Nevill was right in removing them in 

 bis ' Hand-list,' where, however, f he simply classes them in Nanina without 

 specifying any subgeneric group. Judging, it is true, chiefly from the shells, 

 I should class the following Indian and Burmese species in Euplecta : — 



Helix ponsa,X Benson ; from Burma. 



• J. A. S. B., 1871, xl, pt. 2, p. 231 ; 1873, xUi, pt, 2, p. 14. 

 t 1. c. pp. 28, 29, 30, &c. 



X I find this short note on specimens of this species obtained in upper Bunna in 

 1861: — Animal of the vitrinoides type, but the projecting lobe (t. that above the 

 caudal gland) is small. 



