1870.] MR. THEOBALD ON CERTAIN SPECIES OF TORTOISES. 675 
T. stellata, of which T. megalopus, Blyth, was a synonym (vide 
J. A.S. B. xxxii. p. 83). In Burmah two other species occurred, 
T'. elongata, Blyth, and T. platynotus, Blyth. The latter species 
was closely allied to 7’. stellata of India, and replaced it throughout 
the countries east of the Bay of Bengal. The third species of Tes- 
tudo from Burmah was 7’. phayrei, Blyth (J. A. 8. B. xxii. p. 639), 
of which Mr. Theobald considered 7. falconeri, Gray, to be a mere 
synonym. An excellent description of this species had been given 
by Blyth (/. ¢.), founded on two stuffed specimens presented by 
Captain Phayre, the largest of which measured 20 inches in a straight 
line, or 223 over the curve, the second specimen being slightly 
smaller, though more aged. In his ‘ Catalogue of the Reptiles in 
the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal’ Mr. Theobald had 
entered inadvertently the larger or type specimen of 7. phayrei as 
‘*T. indica,” whilst the smaller specimen (which was in a very di- 
lapidated state) had been entered as Manouria emys. Both these 
mistakes Mr. Theobald attributed to his own culpable haste, as the 
type was easily recognizable, and had been at once detected by Dr. 
Anderson, the present curator. However, it required only a glance 
to see that Dr. Giinther had erred in uniting 7. phayrei, Blyth, 
with Manouria, inasmuch as, though 7’. phayret possessed a divided 
caudal plate, yet its pectoral shields united to form a suture, as in 
true Testudo, and bore no resemblance to those plates in Manouria. 
The smaller and more aged specimen above alluded to had been ori- 
ginally stuffed, but when examined by Mr. Theobald was found to 
be in a very fragmentary condition. On inquiries being made how 
it had come into this state, Mr. Theobald had been informed that 
the specimen in question had been taken away by Dr. Falconer 
(when engaged in preparing his Catalogue of the Asiatic Society’s 
Sewalik fossils) and buried, in order to separate the bones. The 
dermai plates were now consequently entirely separated from the 
skeleton, most of them, together with the skull and most of the 
limb-bones, being missing. The skeleton itself bore the names of 
the different bones written upon them in ink either by Dr. Falconer 
himself or by Dr. Walker, who had assisted him in the preparation 
of the above-named catalogue. As the skull in question had not, as 
it seemed, ever been restored to the Indian Museum through the 
inadvertence of Dr. Falconer when returning the rest. of the speci- 
men, it was but reasonable to conclude that it had remained in his pos- 
session, and had eventually thus passed into the British Museum. 
In default, therefore, of more exact information, Mr. Theobald held 
that the evidence before him pointed to the conclusion that the 
skull whereon 7’. falconeri, Gray, had been based was no other than 
the identical skull of 7. phayrei, Blyth, missing from the Calcutta 
Museum. 
3. Testupo ELonGATA, Blyth (Gray, /. c. p. 171). 
This was the type of Dr. Gray’s genus Peltastes, a name, as Dr. 
Stoliezka had pointed out to Mr. Theobald, preoccupied by Rossi in 
1807 for a Hymenopteron, by Agassiz in 1838 for an Echino- 
