Dr. .1. Anderson on Testiulo IMiayiei. ;]29 



the existence of a lon^itiulinally heJhf-handed group of squir- 

 rels ; Imt I am aware tliat mere external eliaracters an' unlv 

 of value as a means of elassifying animal forms jireliminary 

 to an extended knowledge of persistent structural modifica- 

 tions. 



Dr. Gray on two occasions insinuates that I have described 

 my specimens from native drawings — a suggestion to which 

 I give an unqualified contradiction, liut, whatever may be 

 the faults in perspective drawing by native artists, they are 

 capital workers at detail, when properly supervised ; and Dr. 

 Gray himself bore witness, in past years, to their accuracy, 

 when, on the faith of the correctness of their representations, 

 he, in his ' Illustrations of Indian Zoology,' founded many 

 species on native drawings ; but no Indian zoologist requires 

 to have recourse to them, as he can usually procure the living 

 or recently dead sj)eeimens. 



With regard to T. Ji'iu/ii, the next subject animadverted on 

 by Dr. Gray, this species was described by him from a single 

 skull, without his knowing any thing of the carapace or ster- 

 num. I have already mentioned, in its proper place, that this 

 skull agrees in every particular with the skull of T. Phayrei. 

 The central longitudinal ridge across the front of the concave 

 alveolar surface of the lower jaw in my specimen is, as was to 

 be ex])ected in such a large individual, more strongly deve- 

 loped than in Gray's type. Dr. Gray regrets that I did not 

 show him the skull of T. Phayrei, a regret which I share with 

 him ; for if he had seen the skull, he would doubtless have 

 been convinced of their identity, and the readers of this Journal 

 would have been spared this unpleasant discussion. If my 

 visit to London had not been so short and hurried, Dr. Gray 

 would have seen the skull ; but I was quite competent, with 

 the skull of T. Jeudii before me and that of T. Phayrei in my 

 hand, to decide whether the two were distinct. 



It is not my intention to follow Dr. Gray in his estimate of 

 the state of science in the Imperial Museum, beyond remark- 

 ing that it seems to me that the opinion of a single man, un- 

 8U])portcd by unprejudiced evidence, is powerless to affect its 

 reputation. 



Dr. Gray finds fault with my measurements ; but his mis- 

 understanding of the formulae " '" does not rest with me, 

 especially as Dr. Gray was formerly in the habit of using the 

 same formulae for his measurements ; and in verification of 

 this I refer to pp. 24-58 of the ' Proceedings of the Zoological 

 Society of London ' for 1848, Avhere he uses the foregoing 

 formulae and inches in the same line. This is an instructive 

 exam])le of the character of Dr. Gray's criticism. 



A Tw. d' Mofj. Xaf. Hist. Ser. 4. Vol viii. 25 



