( (590 ) 



EEMAEKS AND COEEECTIONS EELATING TO THE LmNG 

 GIANT TOETOISE ON MAUEITIUS. 



By TIfK HON. WAI.TER ROTHSCHILD. 



WHEN I wrote mj- sirticle in Part IV. of Novitates Zoologicar, page G70, 

 which appeared September 20th, 1894, I had not read Dr. Hans Gadow's 

 article on " Land Tortoises of Mauritins " in The, Transactions of the Zoological 

 Socicti/, pp. 313 to 323, plates 42 to 44. In this article, to m}- great regret, I 

 find that M. Tlidodore Sanzier, in La Nature, No. 1016 (November 19th, 1892), 

 pp. 395 to 398, had already given an account of the Port Ix)nis giant tortoise, 

 and moreover describes it as a now species under tlie name of Testudo sumcirei, 

 giving as special distinctions the absence of a nuchal plate combined witli a 

 dortble gnlar shield. 



This, b}- the way, together with the discovery of several subfossil remains of 

 the same type, is held by Dr. Gadow to upset Dr. (Tiiiithor's classification, which 

 is as follows : — 



(liant tortoises icith nuchal plate and double gular shield = Aldabra races. 



Giant tortoises ivitliout nuchal plate and with single gular shield = Mascarene 

 races. 



Giant tortoises roithout nuchal plate and with double qular shield — Galapagos 

 race. 



Now Dr. (Jadowthinks tliat, through the discovery of subfossil remains and 

 an examination of the living specimen, it is quite clear that giant tortoises of two 

 distinct types occurred together, and that therefore some new character must be 

 looked for to distinguish sufficiently and sharply the old-world gnmp of forms from 

 the new-world group. Dr. Giinther, however, pointed out to me that the fossil 

 remains with double gular shield are not of the Galapagos type at all, but belong to 

 a much older race, more allied to the Sewalik hill tortoise, Colossochelys atlas, 

 and that the living Testudo sumeirei was not a native of Mauritins, but had been 

 brought from one of the smaller islands. 



My failure to find M. Sanzier s article is, however, somewhat excusable, for it 

 is not quoted by Mr. Boulenger in the Zoological Record for 1892, and moreover 

 La Nature is a periodical in which usually descriptions of new species do not 

 occur. Dr. Gadow says in his article in a footnote (page 320) that, should on 

 examination after death the Testudo sumeirei Sauz. prove distinct from the sub- 

 fossil species, he proposes to call the latter Testudo guentheri. I must, however, 

 point out to Dr. Gadow that he must find a new name for his hypothetical new 

 species, for in the American Naturalist, vol. xxiii., pp. 1039 to 1057 (1S89), Mr. 

 G. Banr proves Dr. Giinther's name of Testudo clephantopus to be iireoccujiied and 

 renames the species Testudo guentheri. 



