MOLLUSCA. 
15 
3. Helicarion stoliczkantjs, n. sp.. Pigs. 19—21. 
Vitrina monticola of Eeeve and Conchologia Indica, not Pfr. 
(f) Vitrina sp.^ from Almora^ Bens.^ J. A. S. B., VII;, p. 214. 
(/) Vitrina monticola of Benson in MSS.^ not of Pfr. 
This shell is a close ally of S.. cassida, and might indeed he ranked as a smaller 
variety, with less exserted whorls and with a rather differently coloured epidermis; the close 
relationship was noted as above by Benson, and is well shown by Beeve, figs. 10 and 11, and 
by Hanley, pi. clii, figs. 1—4, who represent both species side by side, no doubt purposely. 
A comparison of these figures with Pfeiffer’s original description, as detailed here under the 
next species, at once shows that the two belong to totally different sections of the genus- 
I have discovered a very similar misunderstanding with Nanina petrosa, Hutton, originally 
described from Mirzapur. On Benson informing Hutton that his Mirzapur A. petrosa was 
only the Calcutta A. ritrinoides, the latter transferred liis name of N. petrosa to an undescribed 
Himalayan allied smaller form, the animal of which he knew to be distinct. Benson was wrong; 
Hutton’s species from the Bajmahal Hills (Bhagalpur, Mirzapur, &c.), proves quite different, 
both as regards shell and animal, from the Calcutta form, and of course retains its name N. 
petrosa. It is well and correctly figured in the “ Conchologia Indica,” pi. Ixxxviii, figs. 7 and 
10, where our common Calcutta N. vitrinoides is not represented at all. I think it very likely 
something similar may have happened, causing the confusion of this Helicarion and the next 
species; some one may have pointed out that Pfeiffer’s flat and depressed shell was only a 
variety of Benson’s S. scutella from Teria Ghat, whereupon the name of monticola was trans¬ 
ferred to the other North-West form, which had previously not been distinguished by a separate 
name from S. cassida, though probably the allied form from Almorah referred to by Benson 
in the original description (J. A. S. B., YII, p. 214). Indeed from this passage I conclude 
Benson’s manuscript name of monticola really referred to this shell, and not to the species de¬ 
scribed as such by Pfeiffer. This would account for this form being named monticola in Cuming’s 
collection, and hence figured for it by Beeve and Hanley; Pfeiffer’s actual type of monticola 
should be looked for in the Cumingian collection, amongst the variety of Vitrina scutella from 
the North-West Himalayas. Benson probably, when describing his Vitrina scutella, did 
not compare it with Pfeiffer’s monticola, because he assumed the latter to be his own true 
manuscript monticola, and not the flat-whorled, depressed shell Pfeiffer really described for 
it, and which Benson considered (possibly correctly) to be a variety of his Teria Ghat 
scutella. 
Dr. Stoliczka found a single specimen at Tinali. I have not taken this specimen as 
my type, but one of the common Naini Tal specimens, represented in most collections. 
Type from Naini Tal: diam. 22, axis 8, alt. 13; apert. lat. 14^, alt. 12 mm. 
4. Helicarion monticola, Pfr. 
Vitrina monticola, Pfr., P. Z. S., 1848 (Landour, Almorab, &c.) 
Vitrina scutella (pars), Bens., Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 1859, ser. -3, vol iii, p. 188 (Khasi Hills 
and Kashmir). 
Unfortunately, in his original description of A. scutella, Benson does not say whether 
he takes the Khasi or Kashmir form for his type; the two must, I believe, be specifically 
separated. If, however, they should prove identical, the scutella of Benson will be a synonym 
