1873.] W. Theobald— On type specimens of Batraclda. Ill 



observed that a number of Mr. Blyth's types of Batraclda in the Indian 

 Museum have been identified. These are of peculiar interest, as Mr. Theo- 

 bald was under the impression, when he drew up his Catalogue of the Rep- 

 tiles in the Asiatic Society's Museum, that they had disappeared from the col- 

 lection." On first being informed of this fact some time last year, I received 

 the intimation with pleasure, thinking that I had been guilty of an over- 

 sight in the haste with which the Catalogue was compiled, but having recent- 

 ly had my attention re-drawn to the subject by Dr. J. E. Gray's repeated 

 attacks on me, as regards the Testudinata, a full reply to which I am now 

 preparing, I thought I would look into the " how and why" I came to over- 

 look the above types, and the following is the result at which I have arrived, 

 that whilst bearing full testimony to the patient research of Dr. Anderson, 

 and the perfect fairness wherewith his remarks are written, I cannot but 

 see there are some difficulties in the way of accepting his conclusion. 



The first Batrachian type I was supposed to have overlooked, Megalophrys 

 gig as, Blyth 71, is thus entered in Dr. Anderson's paper, and I cannot see how 

 it is possible that Dr. Anderson can be right, but the facts are these. 



" Rana Liebigii, Gunther. 



Megalophrys gigas, Blyth, Jour. As. Soc. Beng. XX p. 410, XIII 

 p. 299, and XXIV p. 717. 



Bona Liebigii, Gth. p. 38, 1860 p. 157 pt. 28, fig. A. 



Hylorana erythrcea, Schlegel, Theobald Cat. Hep. As. Soc. Museum 

 p. 84 (J. A. S. XIII supra is a typographical error for XXIII)." 



Now the object I had in view in preparing the Catalogue was quite 

 distinct from the far more laborious one subsecpiently carried out by Dr. 

 Anderson, namely, a critical examination of each individual specimen, and 

 was mainly to record the number and names of specimens in the As. Soc. 

 Museum at the time, as they stood recorded, recently in Mr. Blyth's own 

 handwriting, on the labels attached to the bottles. As Mr. Blyth had 

 described two species of Megalophrys, as among presentations to the Museum, 

 I entered both species with references in the Catalogue, but as I could dis- 

 cover no specimens of the genus in the Museum, nor any specimens having 

 that name on their label, I presumed that they had been lost. Doubtless 

 what did take place, with respect to the species claimed as re-discovered by 

 Dr. Anderson, was that Mr. Blyth, being satisfied it was no Megalophrys, 

 removed the label. There is, however, a difficulty in accepting Dr. Ander- 

 son's identification which has not been explained or alluded to. As a matter 

 of fact, the specimen which Dr. Anderson considers he has identified as the 

 type of Megalophrys G-igas, was presented by Capt. W. S. Sherwill from Sik- 

 kim, and was an adult male ; whilst the specimen identified as the above type 

 under Hylorana erythrcea in my Catalogue was labelled in Blyth's hand- 

 writing as presented by Major Berdmore from Mergui, and is moreover a 



