114 Mr. A. G. Butler on the Indian 



I have just seen Mr. Cope's synopsis of the Chelydrinfe in 

 the ' Proceedings of the Academy of Nat. Sciences of Phila- 

 delphia ' for 1872, p. 22, which contains some remarks on 

 M. Bocourt's paper. He observes that 



1. Staiirotijpus 8alvi7in\ figured by Bocourt, appears to him 

 to be very different from that described by Dr. Gray, and 

 perhaps pertains to another genus. " Dr. Gray describes the 

 anterior lobe of the sternum in S. Salvinii as narrowed like 

 the posterior, while it is broadly rounded in this animal." 

 Mr. Cope forms for this a species, which he names Claudius 

 pictus ; but he seems to have a doubt if it is distinct from a 

 species which he calls Claudius severus, p. 24, — which I think 

 are both the same as Stauremys Salvinii. 



Mr. Cope's paper induces me to believe that the first section 

 of his genus Claudius is synonymous with my genus Stau- 

 remys^ which differs from Claudius in having a broader sternal 

 costal process and a distinct inguinal. 



2. Claudius angustatus^ Cope. He seems to consider that 

 his species is different from that figured by M.. Bocourt, and is 

 inclined to think that Bocourt was right when he named it me- 

 galocephalus in 1868, though he afterwards gave it up, believing 

 it to be the same as Cope's. From these observations it would 

 appear as if the genus Claudius ought to be confined to this 

 species, peculiar for having a very narrow costal lateral lobe 

 and only a single or no inguinal shield. 



XVI. — Answer to Dr. StoliczA-d's "Notes on the Indian Sjoecies 

 o/"Thelyplionus." By A. G. Butlee, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. 



De. STOLiCZKAhas just forwarded to me a paper recently read 

 before the Asiatic Society of Bengal, containing a criticism of 

 my monograph of Thelyphonus (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, 

 vol. X. pp. 200-206), and supplemented by descriptions of 

 several new species. 



It is unfortunate that the author did not acquaint me with 

 his intention to describe new Indian Thelyphoni, as I should 

 willingly have deferred the publication of my own paper (Cist. 

 Ent. vi. pp. 129-132) until his descriptions had appeared, and 

 thus avoided adding to the synonymy of the genus. As it is, 

 there can be little doubt that ray paper has priority, since it 

 was before the public on May 1, whereas the separate copies 

 even of Dr. Stoliczka's paper appear not to have reached the 

 author much before the middle of that month, the one forwarded 

 to me having left Calcutta on the 15th. 



