^ Reptiles of British India.' 417 



request, as the only specimen of that Lizard I ever procured 

 was sent by me to the Museum of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta. 

 It appears to me, moreover, that very little attention would have 

 enabled Dr. Giinther, had he been so inclined^ to have identified 

 this Lizard, which is either Gymnodactylus deccanensis, Giinther, 

 or some very closely allied species ; but I shall leave it to Mr. 

 Blyth to inquire why Dr. Giinther should be so completely at a 

 loss to imagine what sort of Lizard is the type of his Homonota 

 fasciatttj as well as to identify other species of reptiles described 

 by the late accomplished Curator of the Asiatic Society. 



It is unjust, not to say untrue, as well as ofi'ensive in its tone, 

 in that part of his paragraph where he says that I ^' rarely hit 

 upon the proper generic name -,'' for, Gentlemen, you will hardly 

 be prepared to believe that out of about one hundred species of 

 true reptiles noted in my catalogue, only seven are not referred 

 to their proper genera as recognized at the time ; and in some 

 even of these few the error is very excusable, as I shall now 

 point out. The seven species of Reptiles wrongly referred by 

 me are, three species referred to Cylindrophis, one to Xeno- 

 peltisj and three to Leptophis, Of these, the Snakes referred to 

 Cylindrophis belong either to the allied genus Rhinophis or to 

 Siliburaj or to both. The Snake referred to Xenopeltis is a new 

 form, recently named Geophis by Dr. Giinther, which he, in his 

 ' Catalogue of Colubrine Snakes in the British Museum,' classed 

 as a Rhabdosoma. It is, however, evidently Dumeril and Bibron's 

 Platypteryx Perroteti, rightly stated by them to be found on the 

 Neelgherries, where I procured my specimens ; and I may state 

 that the only specimen in the British Museum when Dr. Giinther 

 compiled his Catalogue was presented by myself. Of the three 

 Snakes referred by me to Leptophis, one is Psammophis condo^ 

 narus (as I myself afterwards recognized when I obtained large 

 specimens in Central India), whilst the other two, if specifically 

 distinct, belong to a new form, now called Tropidococcyx by 

 Dr. Giinther, and which in his Catalogue he classed under 

 Di'yophiSf and Dumeril and Bibron under Psammophis. 



Of the twenty-seven or twenty-eight Batrachians noted in my 

 Catalogue, the great majority are correctly referred to their 

 proper genera as then recognized; and I am only in doubt as 

 to the species referred to the genera Limnodytes, Phyllomedusa, 

 and Hylcedactylus. Of these I believe the latter to be rightly 

 classed ; but the frogs referred to the two former genera — at all 

 events that referred to Phyllomedusa — may turn out to be a new 

 form. None of these last four species are very rare in parts of 

 South India, and specimens ought to be sent home for identifica- 

 tion. I may here state that^ fifteen years ago^ in my Catalogue^ I 



