CONCHOLOGIA IND1CA. 
33 
Under this name Deshayes has figured a shell in 
Belanger’s voyage (Ind. Orient. Zool. p. 419, Moll, 
pi. 1, f. 14, 15) which differs remarkably from the ordi¬ 
nary type. Our figure 10 is from a rather uncommon 
variety. 
PLATE LXXVII. 
PALUDINA. 
1, 2. P. Ceylanica, Dohrn, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1857, 
p. 123.—Peeve, Conch. Icon. Palud. f. 32. 
Ceylon. 
Possibly identical with the P. biangulata of Ivuster. 
3, 4. P. dissimilis, Muller, Hist. Yerm. pt. 2, p. 184 
(as Neritad.).—Schrbter, Einleit. Conch, vol. 2, p. 
254, pi. 4, f. 10, (ditto).—Helix d. Gmelin, Syst. 
Nat. 3647.—Dillwyn, Des. Cat. p. 941 (ditto).— 
P. Eemossii, Kuster, (not Philippi) ed. Chemn. 
Palud. p. 26, pi. 5, f. 17, 18. 
Tanks near Calcutta ; Kondooruwave, &c. 
This shell was fairly figured by Chemnitz as the 
Tranquebar variety of the Helix vivipara of Linnaeus. 
The P. dissimilis of Reeve was not Indian, but from the 
Nile, and is not unlike unicolor : his melanostoma (C. 
Icon. Pal. f. 27) is regarded by Martens as a form of 
this species. 
5. P. Bengalensis, Lamarck, var. gigantea.—P. 
gigantea, Von dem Busch, in Reeve’s Conch. Icon. 
Palud. f. 7. 
Bengal. 
A swollen form of this widely diffused species. 
6. P. doliaris, Gould, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist, 
vol. l,p. 144; Otia Conch, p. 191.—Reeve, Conch. 
Icon. Palud. f. 1. 
British Birmah. 
7, 10. P. Heliciformis, Frauenfeld, Verhandl. Zool. 
Bot. Wien, vol. 15 (1865), p. 533, pi. 22 (as 
Vivivipara H.) : Zool. Misc. pt. 5.—P. dissimilis, 
var. decussatula, or P. decussatula, Blanford, Proc. 
Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 446. 
Ava; Rangoon. 
Comparison of the types shows their absolute identity. 
The specimen originally described was supposed to have 
come from Central Africa. The spire is usually eroded. 
8, 9. P. Remossii, Philippi (erroneously as of 
Benson), Abbild. N. Conch, vol. 2, p. 134, Palud. 
pi. 2, f. 3. 
Jounpore, Soobathur, &c. 
We are aware that Benson supposed “Remossii” 
was an incorrect reading of his manuscript name 
“ prsemorsa,” yet as the species actually published 
under the latter designation by Reeve is much more 
like dissimilis, and the shell here delineated was the 
melanostoma of Hutton according to Benson’s collec¬ 
tion, we prefer to retain the printed name. It matters 
little, indeed, to science whether or not a Monsieur 
Remosse ever existed; much to science that published 
names should not be changed without the most absolute 
necessity. The P. melanostoma of Reeve (?= dissimilis) 
does not exhibit the dark-lipped mouth; no definition 
of Hutton’s shell has, to our knowledge, appeared in 
print. 
PLATE LXXVIII. 
ACHATINA: Section Electra. 
See previous plates, xvii, xviii, xxxv, xxxvi. 
1. A. pulla, Blanford, Journ. Asi. Soc. Beng. 1870, 
vol. 39, pt. 2, p. 21, pi. 3, f. 20 (as Glessula p.) 
Torna. 
2. A. Hugeli, Pfeiffer, Mon. Iielic. vol. 2, p. 259.— 
Glandina H. Philip. Ab. Neuer Conch, vol. 1, p. 
135, Glandina, pi. 1, f. 8. 
Cashmire. 
3. A. Tornensis, Blanford, Journ. Asi. Soc. Beng. 
1870, vol. 39, pt. 2, p. 22, pi. 3, f. 22 (as 
Glessula.) 
Torna Hill, near Poona, Deccan. 
4. A. Sattaraensis, H. Adams, Mss. for his A. fusca, 
Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 15, pi. 4, f. 10 (preoccu¬ 
pied). 
Saharumpore, Ceylon. 
This is not the A. fusca of Pfeiffer, which is near, if 
not identical with the parabilis of Benson. 
5. A. erosa, Blanford, Journ. Asi. Soc. Beng. 1871, 
(vol. 40, pt. 2), p. 43, pi. 2, fig. 7 (as Glessula e.). 
Darjiling. 
6. A. baculina, Blanford, Journ. Asi. Soc. Beng. 
1871, vol. 40, pt. 2, p. 43, pi. 2, f. 6 (as Glessula b.). 
Khersiong, Sikkim Himalayah. 
7. A. Singhurensis, Blanford, Journ. Asi. Soc. 
Beng. 1870, vol. 39, pt. 2, p. 19, pi. 3, f. 17 (as 
Glessula S.). 
Singhur, near Poona, Deccan. 
8. A. serena, Benson, Ann. Nat. Hist. 1860, ser. 3, 
vol. 5, p. 384,460.—Pfeif. Mon. Helic. vol. 6,p. 223. 
Ceylon. 
9. A. Oreas, Benson, in Reeve’s Conch. Icon. Achat, 
f. 113.—Pfeif. Mon. Helic. vol. 3, p. 495? 
Nilgherries. 
