Dr. J. Anderson o)i Testudo Phayrei. 325 



had I tliouglit that they had all the facts before them and 

 were in possession of my papers. But as it is highly impro- 

 bable that they are so situated, I shall answer and dispose of 

 Dr. Gray's personalities with the summary brevity which such 

 unfounded statements as those indulged in by him with regard 

 to my Avork merit from me. It seems to me a degradation of 

 science to allow personal feeling in any way to interfere with 

 and bias the judgment in questions that can be decided only 

 by accurate observation and reason. 



The following are the circumstances which have elicited 

 Dr. Gray's remarks. In some short papers contributed by 

 me to the ' Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London ' 

 I had occasion fairly to criticise Dr. Gray's definition of the 

 genus Macroxxis and his division of the squirrels into two 

 genera, Sciuriis and Macroxus^ and to suggest that his name 

 for a new genus of Cetacea, which I accepted, should be 

 slightly altered to make it accord with the rules that regulate 

 the formation of Latin words. I also stated that it was my 

 opinion that Trionyx Jeudiij Gray, was the Trionyx Phayreiy 

 Theobald. Had I stepped out of my way to make these ob- 

 servations, without having any thing to say on these animals, 

 I should certainly have followed a most objectionable course ; 

 but as I had some remarks to offer on each, I hold that I did 

 not overstep the bounds of fair criticism. 



With regard to T. Phayrei (for I will follow the order that 

 Dr. Gray has adopted in his remarks, his article not being 

 confined to the consideration of this tortoise), the specimen 

 which formed the subject of my observations is a specimen 

 which, on the very best authority, I was informed was an 

 adult of the species ; so that Dr. Gray was wrong in con- 

 cluding that I had no better means of determining the species 

 than Theobald's description afforded. 



Dr. Gray says that my figm-e of the sternum of T. Phayrei 

 does not accord with my remark that the chief differences that 

 separate it from T. gangeticus are the less developed character 

 of the osseous portion of the sternum and the relatively finer 

 character of its sculpturing on both aspects, and proceeds to 

 observe that my di'awing represents large and well-developed 

 callosities, not in the slightest degree resembling the small, 

 narrow, linear, lateral callosities found in Trionyx suhplanus 

 as described by Theobald, but also having large triangular 

 anal callosities and the odd osseous semicircular bone in the 

 front of the sternum covered with a lunate callosity, not even 

 found in Trionyx gangeticus ; and as the result of these consi- 

 derations, Dr. Gray arrives at the conclusion that the specimen 

 I described had no connexion with T. Phayrei^ Theobald. 



