82 W. Theobald — On Indian and Burmese species of Trionyx. [Maech, 



I append below a few comparative measurements in Mills of the skulls 

 of the species treated of above : — 



No. 1. Trionyx gangeticus, Cuv. ... (Imperial Museum). 

 „ 2. Tr. Buchanani, Th. ... (Imperial Museum). 



* „ 3. Tr. stellatus, Geoff. ... From Moulmein, (Plate III). 



„ 4. Tr. cariniferus, Gray. ... „ Moulmein, (Plate IV). 



Length of skull 



Width behind zygoma 



Longest diameter of orbit ... 



Between orbits 



Extremity of skull to anterior rim of orbit ... 



Anterior rim of orbit to tip of nasal bones ... 



Extreme length of mandible 



Extreme height 



Median depth below in front 



I. 



II. 



IIL 



97- 



105' 



102- 



bV 



49- 



44 



15 



14- 



125 



7 



11-5 



7-2 



73- 



98 



77- 



14 



14 



13- 



58- 



66-2 



51-5 



21- 



24-5 



19- 



13- 



19- 



13 



IV. 



100- 

 54 

 14. 

 U-i 

 89 

 12 

 64 

 25 

 18 



I shall now notice certain statements of Dr, Gray contained in his 

 Supplement and Appendix to the Catalogue of Shield Reptiles, but it is 

 quite beyond vcvj powers, within the reasonable limits of a paper like the 

 present, to follow Dr. Gray through all the changes of species and genera, 

 which he has from time to time introduced. 



At p. 10 of the Appendix to the Catalogue of Shield Eeptiles, 1872, 

 Dr Gray observes under the head Notochelys platynota : — " Mr. Theobald 

 in his catalogue confounds this species with Geomyda grandisT Now in 

 my catalogue of the Reptiles of Pegu, published in the 10th volume of the 

 Journal of the Linnean Societ}^, Notochelys is not mentioned, so the 

 catalogue to which Dr. Gray refers must be that of the reptiles in the 

 Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, published in Calcutta by the 

 Society in 1868, during my absence in England, and in which the onlj'- 

 passage referring to Notochelys stands thus, p. 10, Geomyda grandis^ 

 Gray. 



Cyclemys Platynota, Gray, apud Blyth. 



Now I do not see how any naturalist can misunderstand the above 

 passage, or affect to suppose that, in quoting a synonym as understood by 

 another, the man who makes such' quotation can be held thereby to endorse 

 it. Had I intended it to be understood that I considered grandis and 

 platynota synonymous, I should certainly have ranged grandis as a synonym 

 o{ platynota, ^incQ ihe latter name dates from 1831, and the former only 

 from 1860 {vide Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1860, and Proceed- 

 ings of Zoological Society, 1834,) but I did just the reverse, and I do not 



* Both figures are one-tliird of natural size. 



