226 REPORT—1883. 
’ Jarge teeth, indicating Papuan or Melanesian affinities; and the other 
three were more or less intermediate. This is what might have been 
expected on the border-land of two distinct races; but the great pre- 
ponderance of the first-named was very marked. Nearly all showed signs. 
of artificial flattening of the occipital region.’ 
At the meeting of the Zoological Society on April 17, Mr. Sclater read 
a second paper on the additional birds collected by Mr. Forbes in the 
Tenimber group. ‘The avifauna of the group, as indicated by Mr. 
Forbes’s collection, contained fifty-nine species, of which twenty-two were 
peculiar to these islands.’ 
At the meeting of the same society on May 1, Mr. W. F. Kirby 
reported on the small collection of Hymenoptera (five new species were 
described) and of Diptera sent home by Mr. Forbes. On June 5 a com- 
munication was read from Mr. A. G. Butler, containing an account of 
the twenty-three Lepidoptera. These comprised 23 species of Lepi- 
doptera; the butterflies were well preserved, the moths in poor condition. 
Mr. Butler described 10 new species. Deducting wide-ranging forms 
the following is his analysis of the characteristic species :— Indo- 
Malayan, 2; Austro-Malayan, 10; Australian, 3. The only surprising 
thing in this distribution is the preponderance of Timor over Aru or 
New Guinea forms; the species characteristic of that island being only 
equalled by those from Aru, New Guinea, and Amboina combined.’ Mr. 
Boulenger also reported, at the same meeting, upon the reptiles and 
batrachians. Two new species were described—the one a lizard of the 
Australian genus Lophognathus, and the other a snake of the Indian 
genus Simotes. ‘The snake was of special interest, as no species of the 
genus Simotes had hitherto been previously known to occur eastward of 
Java.’ 
Some discussion having taken place with Mr. Comyns, Mr. Forbes’s 
representative in England, as to the way the Timor-laut collections should 
be dealt with, your Committee proposed to Mr. Comyns, as the condition 
upon which any grants of money made to it should be handed over to 
Mr. Forbes, that of the collections made by him, ‘ both zoological and 
botanical, the first complete set is to be placed at the disposal of the 
Committee.’ To this Mr. Comyns agreed. He subsequently raised the 
question as to whether the ethnographical collections came within the 
terms of this agreement. Your Committee thought the point donbtful. 
At the same time they were very anxious that the fruits of Mr. Forbes’s 
expedition should be accessible in public museums, and should not be 
dispersed in private hands. It was ultimately agreed that a selection 
from the ethnographical collection should be purchased for the British 
Museum ; and the Royal Society, at the instance of Mr. John Evans, very 
liberally voted the sum of 401., which was fixed by Mr. Franks as a 
reasonable price for the collection. A few objects were selected as suitable 
for the Museum of Economic Botany at Kew, and these were purchased 
from Mr. Comyns as a set-off against the expenses incurred for the 
freight of the whole collections. The duplicates of the ethnographical 
and other collections were all duly handed over to Mr. Comyns. 
Mr. Forbes’s botanical collections have not at present reached Kew; 
but there is reason to fear, from a variety of circumstances beyond Mr. 
Forbes’s control, that they will prove of inferior interest to the other 
collections made by him. 
Your Committee understand that the total expense of Mr. Forbes’s 
