126 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S , XIX, 
ical subjects consisting of 5 species of Simiadae, and | 
Ursus, 6 Cervidae, several Muridae, an Ichneumon,a Hystrix, 
3 Caproidae, several Tortoises, 2 Flying Foxes, 2 Lacertae, 2 
Paradoxuri, and 285 birds. 
Summing up, McClelland says of these drawings—‘‘all of 
which. in addition to the fishes, are drawn in duplicate, thus 
amounting to about 900 drawings.” In addition “McClelland 
found that two quarto volumes of Buchanan’s zoological 
manuscripts (relating to these figures we may conjecture) had 
been retained in the Botanical Garden since 1815. Thus all 
this work was lost to the world and our author deprived of its 
credit, while other men were refiguring and redescribing these 
animals. 
Just here an apparent discrepancy may be cleared up. 
The preface of the 1833 Dinajpur volume refers to 25 volumes 
of Buchanan’s manuscript transmitted to the Court of Direc- 
tors,a duplicate set being left with the Indian Government. 
Elsewhere in this paper reference is made to 21 folio manus- 
cript volumes plus 7 of statistics. Now McClelland speaks of 
2 manuscript volumes of fish drawings and of 2 other volumes 
of drawings of general zoological subjects, making 21+2+2= 
25 as stated in the Dinajpur volume. This seems to be in 
error, however, in saying that duplicates of all the 25 volumes 
were sent to England. For as we shall see later, not all the 
Griffith then adds, “For many of the originals, copies ar 
to have been substituted. There are in addition 18 folio 
sheets containing copies of some e drawings of Fish 
executed apparently in Dr. Wallich’s time. Of Birds, etc., 
thereare also similar duplicate copies 22; and of unfinished 
and unnamed 14.’’! 
Next we hear of Buchanan’s fish drawings in 1869 when 
Dr. Giinther says in a footnote on page 127 of the Zoological 
Record that“.. those drawings exist in triplicate, one copy 
being in the British Museum where their free use is allowed.” 
Unfortunately he does not give his authority for this state- 

a I regret that 1 have been unable to find in this country a copy of 
Griffith’s **Report,” and hence have had to quote him from Cantor’s. 
account. Griffith was Director of the Calcutta Botanic Gardens from 
1842 to 1844, during one of Wallich’s absences. 
