1922.) Indian Science Congress. L.8.C. 85 
pointed out that there was considerable diversity in the frogs 
usually grouped under the name Rana tigrina. 1, therefore, 
suggested that several distinct species should be recognised. 
Dr. G A. Boulenger, then in charge of the Reptiles and 
Batrachia in the British Museum and still recognised as the 
leading herpetologist in Europe. did not agree with me. He 
paid me the great compliment of sending me a paper for 
publication in the Records of the Indian Museum, refuting my 
claim for the specific recognition of the different forms of 
Rana tigrina, which he regarded as merely races or varieties. 
In certain points Dr. Boulenger was evidently right and 
o 
i 
wrong. So I wrote a second note expressing my V as 
modified by Dr. Boulenger’s argument. Of this I sent the 
manuscript to him; and he replied ina third note. The e 
the zoological world together, without the slightest bitter- 
ness, loss of mutual respect, or ill-feeling on the part of either 
In the official document whereby the Zoological Survey 
of India was constituted in 1916, our relations with the techni- 
cal departments are laid down as being those of “co-opera- 
tion without subordination.” The thanks of all Indian zoolo- 
gists are due to the man who discovered this formula—I do 
not know his name. 
but also its independence of direct economic aims. 
nothing to say against applied science, provi 5 
science at all, but the term is often “ applied - —, 
akin to the Holy Roman Empire, which has been desor! 
neither holy, Roman, nor an iS ; 
i ical branches, 
ven i te ee ssible, ‘‘ practical results 
he wh 
in which the mathe- 
o9 
rs. 
science the matter 
ti : . lied 
piso Pasay ino sie? be he life of the animal is more 
vastly more complex and just as t 
. 
