112 W. Theobald — On type specimens of Batracli'ut. [Mas'. 



large female ! a fact corroborated by Dr. Anderson in re-examining the spe- 

 cimen. As stated by me the specimen was really labelled by BIyth nigro- 

 mttatus, which I have ranked as a synonym of Ekytiiiueus, and was the 

 type of that species. 



The next species to which I would advert is Diplopelma Berdmorei, 

 Blyth, which Dr. Anderson charges me with confounding with Z>. 

 pulchrum, Gth. Now Dip. Berdmorei is one of the commonest and best 

 marked frogs in Pegu, and I am perfectly familiar with it ; yet Dr. An- 

 derson had full warrant for what he said, for by a ridiculous typographical 

 blunder Dip. Berdmorei is printed in italics, as though a synonym of the pre- 

 ceding species, the name of which, being an Indian frog is entered by me 

 according to my plan, though no specimens were in the Museum. Though 

 Dr. Anderson was really mistaken in this matter, he was fully justified in what 

 he said so far, but I am not convinced that his recognition of the types 

 said to be missing is correct. Dip. Berdmorei is subject to very little variation 

 in colour or size, and it is more likely than not, that among :four specimens 

 from any part of Burmah he could find one which " accurately agrees with 

 Blyth's measurements." As a matter of fact, however, the 4 bleached spe- 

 cimens catalogued by me, were labelled as presented by Col. Phayre from 

 Arakan, whilst the type of " Engystoma Berdmorei, J. A. S. XXIV p. 720, was- 

 presented by Capt. Berdmore from Schwe Gyen. I cannot therefore hold 

 that the authority of an original label can be superseded on the grounds of an 

 accidental agreement or measurement in a frog subject to such slight va- 

 riation as that in question. I am not aware if I am supposed to have over- 

 looked any other types than the above, which it appears in the last degree 

 questionable if I really did overlook, but I merely bring forward the subject 

 in order that so curious an error of so accurate an observer as Dr. Anderson 

 should not be perpetuated, to the bewilderment of whoever may hereafter 

 desire to examine Mr. Blyth's types. 



Dr. Stoliczka regretted that Dr. Anderson was not present to explain 

 the mistake complained of by Mr. Theobald. He said that though he had 

 in this case little doubt about the correctness of Dr. Anderson's specific 

 identifications, still a mistake about Blyth's typical specimens might have 

 occurred, unless specimens from different localities, but belonging to the 

 same species, had been put together in the same bottle with the type 

 specimens. In such cases one could really do no more than select that 

 specimen as the type, which precisely agreed with the original description. 



5. A Contribution towards a Monograph of the Passalidce. — By Dr. F. 

 Stoliczka. 



(Abstract.) 



The author said that his object in examining the Indian representa- 

 tives of this family was chiefly to test the views expressed by Dr. Kaup 



