CHELONIA. 781 



skulls of such a species from Pegu, and lie again correctly identified tho three- 

 streaked Burmese Batagur with B. trivittata, and directed attention to the skull 

 of what he helieved to he an adult female collected by himself in Pegu and which 

 was at that time in the British Museum. Mr. Theobald also stated that this female 

 skull was very difierent from the skull of the male, which was a smaller and more 

 finely coloured animal, and that he considered it probable that the skull of the 

 female was the skull on which Dr. Gray had established the species B. trilineata. 

 He was further under the impression that the K. peguemis of Gray had been 

 founded on a skull (possibly aberrant) of either Tetraonyx lessoni or B. trimttata} 



In 1870 Dr. Gray ^ accepted Mr. Theobald's term B, trimttata as the equiva- 

 lent of his K. trilineata, which he at that time acknowledged as his owm, but he did 

 not recognize the identity of the three- streaked Batagur of the Irawady with the 

 Bmys trivittata of Dumeril and Bibron, and described it under a term which had 

 first been erroneously applied by himself under the impression that the term had 

 originated with another naturalist.^ 



In the Supplement in which the Irawady three- streaked Batagur appears as K. 

 trilineata, Dr. Gray gave as the habitats of the species, Nepal and Pegu, and men- 

 tioned that the Nepal specimen was the one figured originally under the name 

 of Bmys lineata, but which is undoubtedly B. lineata or K. lineata of page 56 of 

 the same Supplement. Moreover, under K. fusca at page 56, a female from Nepal 

 is mentioned, presented by Hodgson, and undoubtedly an example of K. lineata, 

 as I have satisfied myself by actual examination of the specimen ; the other speci- 

 men of K. fusca having been obtained from Theobald, and, being a female, was 

 doubtless regarded by Mm as the female of B. trivittata. Dr. Gray, in describ- 

 ing K. trilineata, adopted Theobald's conclusions regarding the differences that 

 subsist between the sexes, and he stated that on re- examination he was inclined 

 to regard the differences between the skulls as merely sexual, or individual. Dr. 

 Gray, however, did not go so far as to include the term K. peguensis as a 

 synonym of K. trilineata, and in speaking of the skull of B. peguensis he said 

 that it might prove to be the skull of one of the species described in his Cata- 

 logue, thus conveying the impression that he did not regard the evidence of the 

 specific identity of the skulls as conclusive. A comparison of the figures of the two 

 skulls reproduced by Dr. Gray in his Supplement is sufficient to convince any 

 one familiar with the variations that may occur in skulls, that the two forms are 

 very closely alhed, whatever explanation may be offered of the slight observable 

 differences occurring between them. In the Appendix to the Catalogue of Shield 

 Beptiles, Dr. Gray correctly pointed out that Theobald was in error in suggesting 

 that K. peguensis was possibly founded on a skull, probably aberrant, of Tetraonyx, 

 as the skull of B. haska is at once distinguished from the skulls of all known 



1 Theobald, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, p. 676. 



2 Suppl. Cat. Shd. Rept., 1870, p. 54. 



^ I state these facts, as they are absolutely necessary to a clear understanding of the specitic terms which have been 

 applied to this form. 



