^{page 43 note *} In view of the unfortunate replacement of the generic name Ampullaria Lam. by Pila Röding, the family name for these snails also has to be changed from Ampullariidæ to Pilidæ.

^{page 43 note †} For details regarding the distribution of this genus in India, see Prashad, B., Mem. Ind. Mus., viii, pp. 69–89, pls. xiii–xv (1925)Google Scholar; and distribution in Asia and Africa generally, Kobelt W., Martini-Chem. Conch.-Cab. (N.F.), xx (i), Ampullaria (1911–1915); and Pilsbry, H. A., and Bequaert, J., Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist, liii, pp. 166–202 (1927).Google Scholar

^{page 44 note *} For a detailed account of the habits and distribution of the two species, see Prashad, B., Mem. Ind. Mus., viii, pp. 86–89 (1925)Google Scholar, and Proc. Twelfth Ind. Sci. Cong., pp. 134–136 (1925).

^{page 45 note *} For further details in reference to Saulea and Afropomus, see Pilsbry and Bequaert's work (pp. 170, 171) cited already. Both these Old World genera are peculiar in possessing a corneous operculum, but unfortunately we know very little about their anatomy.

^{page 45 note †} Dall, W. H., Journ. Conch., xi, p. 52 (1904).Google Scholar

^{page 46 note *} d'Orbigny, A. D., Voy. Amé. Mér. Moll., p. 364 (1837).Google Scholar Later, in 1840, on p. 379 the author changed the generic name to Ampulloidea.

^{page 46 note †} Gray, J. E., Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 148 (1847).Google Scholar

^{page 46 note ‡} The shell of this species is small, globose-ovoid, with a very short spire, normal ovoidal mouth, imperforate, and has a moderately developed columellar callus. For good figures of the species, see Kobelt, , loc. cit., pl. lxxii, figs. 4, 5 (1914).Google Scholar The second species Asolene commissionis (Ihering) Kobelt (loc. cit., p. 202, pl. lxxii, figs. 6–8) is Pomacea (Marisa) roissyi (d'Orbigny), and not a member of the genus Asolene.

^{page 47 note *} von Ihering, H., Nachrbl. Deutsch. Mcdakozool. Ges., xxiii, p. 99 (1891).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note †} Doello-Jurado, M., Physis, ii, pp. 39, 40 (1915).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note ‡} Zittel, K. A. von, Grundzüge der Palaeontologie, i, “Invertebrata,” p. 465 (1924).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note §} Fischer, P., Man. Conchyliol., p. 737 (1885).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note ║} Arldt, T., Handbuch Palaeogeogr., ii, p. 1165 (1922).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note ¶} Prashad, B., Rec. Geol. Surv. Ind., liii, pp. 210–212, pl. xv (1925).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note **} See Prashad, B., Mem. Ind. Mus., viii, p. 92 (1925)Google Scholar; and Haller, B., Morphol. Jahrb., xviii, p. 538 (1892).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note ††} Bouvier, M. E. L., Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool.), (7) iii, pp. 104, 105 (1887).Google Scholar

^{page 48 note *} Ortmann, A. E., Mem. Carnegie Mus., viii, p. 1 (1919).Google Scholar

^{page 48 note †} Germain, L., Bull. Mus. d'Hist. Nat. Paris, xxv, p. 122 (1919)Google Scholar, and Faun. Malacol, terr. fluv. Iles Mascareignes, pp. 403, 404 (1921).

^{page 48 note ‡} The Devonian and Carboniferous forms described as Unionidæ by Sowerby, King, and MacCoy are now referred to the family Cardinidæ Zittel. For references to the works of the author cited and a discussion of the forms, see Pohlig, H., Palæontographica (N.F.), vii, pp. 110–112 (1880).Google Scholar

^{page 48 note §} Neumayr, M., Sitzungsber. Kais. Akad. Wiss. Wien (Math.-Nat. Cl.), xcviii, pp. 5–27 (1889).Google Scholar Also see the same author's posthumous work in the Denkschrift of the same Academy, vol. lviii, pp. 701–801 (1891).

^{page 48 note ║} See Pelseneer P., In Lankester's Treatise on Zoology, pt. v, “Mollusca,” pp. 258, 267 (1906).

^{page 48 note ¶} Wöhrmann, S. Frh. v., Jahrbuch Kais.-Kon. Geol. Reichsan., xliii, pp. 1–28 (1893).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note *} Pohlig, H., Palæontographica (N.F.), vii, pp. 109–127, pls. xiii, xiv (1880).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note †} Douville, M. H., Compt. Bend. A cad. Sci. Paris, cliv, pp. 1677–1682 (1912).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note ‡} Pelseneer, P., Bull. Sci. France Belgique, xv, pp. 27–52 (1889).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note §} Odhner, N. Hj., Zeitschr. wiss. Zool, c, pp. 375–399 (1912).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note ║} For an admirable review of the work of all these authors, reference may be made to Stenta, M., Bull. Soc. Adr. Sci. Nat. Trieste, xxv, pp. 1–150 (1908).Google Scholar Also see March, M. C., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8) xii, pp. 91–116, pl. iii (1912).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 50 note *} Ihering, H. von, Archiv Naturgesch., i, pp. 45–140 (1893).Google Scholar In this connection also see Ortmann, A. E., Mem. Carnegie Mus., viii, pp. 566–567 (1921).Google Scholar

^{page 50 note †} Simpson, C. T., Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., xviii, pp. 295–343, pl. ix (1896).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 50 note ‡} Simpson, C. T., Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., xxii, pp. 501–1044, pl. xviii (1900).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 50 note §} Simpson, C. T., loc. cit., p. 678 (1900).Google Scholar

^{page 50 note ║} Lea, I., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vii, p. 190 (1863).Google Scholar

^{page 50 note ¶} Haas, F., Martini-Chemn. Conch.-Cab. (N.F.), ix (2), Die Unioniden, p. 121 (1912)Google Scholar, and Nachrbl. deutsch. Malakozool. Ges., xxv, p. 33 (1913).

^{page 50 note **} The second species described as Margaritanopsis woodthorpi from the Shan States, Burma, by Goodwin-Austen, , Rec. Ind. Mus., xvi, pp. 202–204, pl. xv (1909)Google Scholar, is only M. laosensis.

^{page 50 note ††} Haas, F., Senckenbergiana, iv, p. 101 (1922)Google Scholar, and Abhandl. Senckenberg. Naturf. Ges., xxxviii, p. 199, pls. xv, xvi, fig. 3 (1924).

^{page 51 note *} Marshall, W. B., Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., lxxi, Art. 6, p. 3 (1927).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note †} Lea, I., Lea Synonyms, p. 57 (1870).Google Scholar See also Prashad, B., Rec. Ind. Mus., xvi, pp. 290, 291 (1919)Google Scholar; and Hora, S. L., Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, (n.s.) xxii, pp. 71–76 (1927).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note ‡} Conrad, T. A., Amer. Journ. Conch., iv, p. 249 (1868).Google Scholar For references to the Siamese and Chinese species, see Simpson, C. T., Descr. Cat. Naiades, pp. 457–463 (Detroit, 1914).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note §} Higgins, T., Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 179, pl. xiv, fig. 6 (1868).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note ║} For a complete history of the changes in the nomenclature, etc., of this species, see Marshall, W. B., Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., lxxi, Art. C, p. 2 (1927).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note §} Haas, F., Trabajos Mus. Nac. Cienc. Nat. Madrid. (Zool. Ser.), No. 25, p. 57, fig. 2 (1916).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note **} For references to this family, see Anthony, R., Ann. Soc. Zool. Malacol. Belgique, xli, pp. 322–424 (1907)Google Scholar; and Pilsbry, H. A., and Bequaert, J., Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., liii, p. 447 (1927).Google Scholar

^{page 52 note *} See Sassi, M., Zool. Ariz., xxxvi, pp. 25–31 (1910)Google Scholar; and Woodward, M. F., Proc. Malacot. Soc. London, iii, pp. 87–91 (1898).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note *} See, for example, Annandale, N., IXe Cong. Internat. Zool. Monaco, pp. 579–588 (Rennes, 1914).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note †} See Prashad, B., Mem. Ind. Mus., viii, p. 245 (1928), for other references.Google Scholar