324 Dr. J. Anderson on Testiido Phayrei. 



had not been returned to the Asiatic Museum along with the 

 rest of the skeleton, through \\\q inadvertenca of Dr. Falconer." 



Mr. Blyth, in the brochure dated the 28th December 1870, 

 which was distributed about the streets of London, says : — 

 " h\ my presence he [Dr. Falconer] then took to pieces the 

 deformed specimen originally described by me ; and, moreover, 

 he took the skull away with him, which I never saw after- 

 wards." 



Mr. Grote, the secretary of the Society at that period, telLs 

 me that there is no record of this fact in the archives of the 

 Society. 



Dr. Anderson states : — " I Avill also observe that this speci- 

 men generally has a decided appearance of having been j)ar- 

 tially macerated^ but not to any great extc'nt." 



Thus we see that, according to Mr. Theobald, the tortoise 

 was taken away and buried ; according to Blyth, it was taken 

 to pieces in his presence ; Dr. Anderson thinks it has been 

 macerated; Mr. Theobald says the bones have the names 

 written on them by Dr. Falconer or his assistant, Dr. Walker; 

 and Dr. Anderson says it has the names on the sternal ])lates 

 in the handwriting of Dr. Falconer, and that the skull and 

 remainder of the skeleton are absent. They all agree in the 

 skull being absent, and upon this they base the whole theory 

 of the skull being retained by Dr. Falconer. I can only say 

 that the skull in tlie British Museum certaiidy has no appear- 

 ance of ever having had any thing Avritten upon it by any 

 person, or of having been buried, and tliat it shows no indica- 

 tion of any deformities as suggested by ]\[r. Blyth. 



The knowledge of the carapace and skull of the genus 

 Scapia shows that the peculiarity in the form of the skull 

 is a pro])er character of the animal, and not a deformity as 

 Mr. Blyth suggests. 



XL.— On Testudo Phayrei, Theob. & Dr. Gray. 

 By John Anderson, M.D., F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. 



Had not Dr. Gray's name been attached to the article that 

 appeared in the Ann. it Mag. of Nat. Hist, for August last, I 

 would have taken no notice of it; but as anything written by 

 Dr. Gray on a zoological (piestion should carry some weight 

 with it, I have to request that you will insert this reply to 

 Dr. Gray's strictures. 



Apart from the question of Trionyx Phayrei^ I might have 

 left the merits of the other charges which Dr. (rray has 

 brought against rac to the imbiased judgment of your readers, 



