310 
ZOOLOGY OF THE FAR EAST. 
The shell of my type- specimen agrees in almost every respect, except that it is smaller 
and more eroded, with Heude's figures {op. cit., 1882, pi. xl, fig. 6) ; it agrees equally 
well with Kobelt's fig. 7 {op. cit., 1909 : pi. 26), which seems to have been drawn from 
the same shell. Its operculum is, however, quite different from Kobelt's figures la, 
16 on the same plate, and the animal is that of a Hydrobiid, not a Vivipara. The 
operculum figured by Kobelt is evidently the operculum of a Vivipara and is presum- 
ably that of one of the shells figured in figs. 1-6 on the plate. We have, therefore, 
this unexpected fact, that in certain parts of China two molluscs belonging to different 
families occur together, or at any rate in the same locality, which are so like that they 
have deceived even conchologists of the experience of MoUendorf and of Kobelt, for 
the latter says that his figures are taken from specimens in MoUendorf s collection. 
Pseudovivipara is apparently related to the genera Fossaruhis and Prososthenia, 
Neumayr, both of which were originally described from fossil species from the Tertiary 
of Dalmatia ; it is perhaps still more closely related to Tylopoma, Brusina ', from simi- 
lar beds in Eastern Europe. From Fossandus it is distinguished by the sharp outer 
Fig. 4. — Head and adjacent parts of male of Pseudovivipara hypocrites, sp. uov. 
m. = edge of mouth : p. = penis : s. = snout : t. = tentacle. 
lip of the shell, from Prososthenia by its calcareous operculum ; the operculum of Tylo- 
poma is calcareous, but seems to differ in structure. Both Fossarulus ' and Prosos- 
thenia have been recorded living or subfossil from China,^ but the synonomy of the 
genera ^ is a little doubtful and the confusion that has apparently occurred about 
Pseudovivipara hypocrites must render the generic identity of recent and fossil species 
still more open to question. 
Pseudovivipara hypocrites, sp. nov. 
The shell is relatively large and thin. It is of elongate conical form but much 
eroded at the apex in the specimens examined. The suture is not impressed and the 
1 See Brusina, Beitr. Palaont. Osterreich-Ungarns, II, p. 73 (foot-note) : 1882 ; also Neumayr, Abh. K. K. geol. Reich- 
sanstalt, VII, pi. viii, fig. 20 (1875). 
2 Col. Godwin-Austen has shown, in a note to be issued in the Rec. Jnd. Mus., that the Indian species assigned pro- 
visionally to this genus or subgenus by Nevill in his " Hand-List " and by Preston in the volume in the " Fauna " is in 
no way related to it. 
3 See Gredler, Jakrb. Malak. Gesells., VIII, p. 120 (i88i) ; Fischer, Man. Conch., p. 729 (1887) ; Neumayr, Neues Jahrb. 
Min. Geol., II, p. 21 (1883) and " Siissw. Moll." in Wiss. Ergebn. Reis. Beta Szichenyi, II, pp. 652, 653 (1887). 
