1874.] W. Theobald— 0^1 Indian and Burmese species of Trionyx. 83 



understand what shadow of right Dr. Gray had to make so disparaging a 

 statement. The specimen of Qeomyda grandis^ G^i'ay, in questioiij was pre- 

 sented by myself to the Museum in 1855, and consisted of a carapace only, 

 hence it was doubtfully referred at the time by Blyth to JEmys 'platynota. 

 Gray (vide Journal of Asiatic Society, Vol. XXIV, pp. 712 and 7i4j, and I 

 entered this identification of Blyth's as a synonym of the above specimen, 

 being careful to add " apud Blyth," in order to guard against the possible 

 error of future compilers recording, on the above erroneous identification of 

 Blyth, the occurrence oi NotocTielys platynotay Gray, in Tenasserim, whence 

 it had never to my knowledge been obtained. 



Under the head " Kachijga," Appendix, Catalogue of Shield Eeptiles, 

 p. 17, Dr. Gray endeavours to throw the blame of the complete muddle of 

 habitats of the specimens in my collection on myself, with what justice and 

 truth I shall now endeavour to show. To take Kachuga peguensis first ; 

 this species is based on a head stated to have been presented by " W. Theobald 

 Esq., India ;" vide Proceedings of Zoological Society, 1869, p. 200, Fig. 12. 

 Now if there is any point I have laboured to convey, it is that India is not 

 Pegu, or Pegu India, and, consequently, if I gave the habitat " India," it 

 assuredly never came from Pegu. Referring, however, to the same skull in 

 Appendix to the Catalogue of Shield Eeptiles, p. 18, Dr. Gray says : — " The 

 skull figured as Kachuga peguensis, Fig. 20, was purchased of a dealer to 

 whom Mr. Theobald had sold it among some reptiles said to have come from 

 Pegu." 



Now it is clear that both these conflicting statements as to how the type 

 of K. peguensis came into Dr. Gray's hands cannot be true, and equally 

 clear is it also, that I can in no ways be held responsible for such contradic. 

 tory statements ; but towards clearing up the imbroglio, I will contribute a 

 fact or two that may be useful. 



If Dr. Gray is correct in considering his species, K.. peguensis as a 

 synonym of K. trilineata {vide Supplement, Catalogue of Shield Reptiles, 

 p. 54), then the specimen undoubtedly never was received from me, and equally 

 undoubtedly never came from Pegu ; since B. lineata, Gray (Catalogue of 

 Shield Reptiles, p. 35) does not occur in Pegu, where it is replaced by the 

 larger species B. trivittata, Dum. et Bib., but as Dr. Gray seems sure the 

 type was received from me, it must have been a Pegu specimen of B. 

 trivittata, Dum. et Bib., as I had in my collection several shells and skulls 

 of that species, but only one or two shells, but no skulls of the other. 

 Why, moreover, B. lineata, Gray, of p. 35, reappears as K. trilineata, at 

 p. 54, I don't know ; still less can I imagine, why the entirely distinct B. 

 trivittata, Dum. et Bib., should figure as a synonym of it, with my name 

 attached to it in the Supplement, at pp. 54, 55. I specially protested in 

 person to Dr. Gray against the idea of the Pegu form being an Indian species 



