SYSTEMATIC LIST OF SPECIES 
PUBLISHED UP TO 1874.' 
Tanysjphon. 
rivalis, Bn. t. 116, f. 1, 4. 
Novaculina. 
Gangetica, Bn. t. 116, f. 7 : var. P 
f. 10. 
PlSIDlUM. 
Clarkianmn, Rev. t. 155, f. 9. 
Cyclas. 
Indica, D. t. 155, f. 10. 
Avana, 1 2 Tk. (Ava). 
Corbicula . 3 
Bengalensis, Desh. t. 155, f. 6. 
Bensoni, D. t. 188, f. 1, 4. 
Caskmirensis, 1). t. 138, f. 2, 3. 
Iravadica, Bl. t. 155, f. 7. 
occidens, D. t. 138, f. 8, 9. 
BIVALVES. 
regularis, Prime, t. 138, f. 5, 6. 
striatella, D. t. 138, f. 7, 10. 
trigona, D. t. 155, f. 7. 
Scaphula. 
celox, Bn. t. 116, f. 8, 9. 
Deltas, Bl. t. 116, f. 2, 3. 
pinna, Bn. t. 116, f. 5, 6. 
Mycetopus. 
Bensonianus, 4 Lea, t. 9, f. 1 (as 
Soleniformis). 
TPvIGONODON. 
crekristriatum, t. 9, f. 3, 5. 
PSEUDODON. 
Avse, 5 - Tk. (Ava). 
inoscularis, Gould, t. 9, f. 3. 
Unio. 6 
Birmanus, Bl. t. 42, f. 1. 
Bkamoensis, Tk. t. 155, f. 2. 
Bonneaudi, Eyd. and Soul., t. 10, 
f. 6 ; t. 46, f. 5, 6. 
casruleus, Lea, t. 12, f. 3. 
consobrinus, 7 Lea, t. 41, f. 7. 
corbis, Bn. t. 45, f. 10. 
corrugatus, 8 Alii 1. t. 44, f. 5, 6 ; t. 
45, f. 2 to 5. 
crispatus, Gould, t. 45, 1. 1. 
crispisulcatns, Bn. t. 11, f. 5. 
exolesceris, Gould, t. 107, f. 5. 
favidens, 9 Bn. t. 11, f. 1, 2, 3; t. 41, 
f. 3 ; t. 42, f. 2. 
Feddeni, 10 Tk. (River Pemgunga, 
Cl. India.) 
foliaceus, Gould, t. 42, f. 3. 
1 Tlie Editors do not acknowledge the validity of many of 
these species, but merely illustrate them : as to the arrangement 
it does not pretend to be scientific, but useful for grouping the 
allied forms of shells, not mollusks. Some species only just 
published have been added in our last part to fill up vacancies 
in the plates. 
2 Journ. Asi. Soc. Ben. 1873, pt. 2, pi. 17. 
3 In Prime's monograph of this genus we find recorded as 
Indian five of his species, which are wholly unknown to us : C. 
subradiata (An. Lyc. N. York, 1864, vol. 8, p. 75, f. 23), C. 
Agrensis (do. f. 24), C. parvula (do. p. 76, f. 25), C. consan- 
guitiea (do. 3 867, vol. 8, p. 417), C. imperialis (do. 1869, vol. 9). 
The last is stated to come from Pondicherry, always a suspicious 
locality; the two first are probably immature, the two,next in¬ 
sufficiently defined. Chemnitz (Conch. Cab. vol. 6, f. 321) has 
erroneously identified as the fluviatilis of Muller, a Tanjore 
shell which may possibly be intended for occidens. The 
Veloritse being estuary shells (C. Cyprinoides, Gray, and C. 
Cochinensis, Han.) are purposely omitted. 
1 Lea justly remarks that although edentulous when mature, 
the young have manifest teeth. The name has been changed 
because D’Orbigny had previously published a Soleniformis in 
Guerin’s Mag. de Zool. 
5 Monocondyhea Avae, Th. J. Asi. Soc. Beug. 1873, pt. 2, p. 
209, pi. 17, f. 5. 
0 It is possible that the U. luteus of Lea (J. Ac. Philad. 
n. s. vol. 3, pi. 24, f. 4) from Newville, Tavoy, may be identical 
with one of our list, but the specimen delineated was in too bad 
a condition for positive recognition. 
7 The U. exanthematicus of Kuster’s Chemnitz (Unio, p. 243. 
pi. 81, f. 2) has somewhat the aspect of this shell; it is said to 
come from that indefinite locality the “ E. Indies.” 
8 Morch states the U. gibbus of Spengler (Skriv. Nat. 
Kioben. vol. 3, pt. 1) said to come from Tranquebar, is allied to 
this: its Latin description is utterly inadequate for the purpose 
of identification. 
8 To this may be referred the U. Merodabensis of Von 
dem Busch in Kuster’s monograph of Unio (ed. Chemn. U. 
pi. 78, f. 4). Perhaps, too, the U. Rajahensis of Lea (Obs. 
Un. vol. 3, p. 77, pi. 23, f. 53), which has been vainly- sought 
for in the Rajah’s Tank near Calcutta, its recorded locality, may 
prove, if indigenous, a distorted form of this or some allied species. 
10 J. Asi. Soc. Beng. 1873, pt. 2, p. 208, pi. 17, f. 3. 
a 
