:1874.] W. Theobald — On Indian and Burmese S2)ecies of Trionyx. 85 



and rested content therefore with recording my belief to that effect in a 

 paper communicated to the Zoological Societ}^, an abstract of which however 

 was all that was allowed to appear in its Proceedings. 



finally, I will hazard placing on record my distrust of the correctness of 

 Dr. Gray's identification of the skull of Umijs {3Ielanoclielys) trijuga, 

 Supplement, Catalogue of Shield Reptiles, p. 34, on the ground that to the 

 best of my recollection no such species was contained in Dr. Oldham's collec- 

 tion. At all events, no harm can be done by my so doing. 



Calcutta, July 2lst, 1873. 



P. >S'. — Since penning the above paper, the Proceedings of the Zoological 

 Society of London, Part I, for 1873, have come into my hands, wherein a 

 paper b}^ Dr. J. E. Gray on the TrionycliidcB calls for some remarks from me, 

 which I prefer embodying in the form of a postscript, rather than intercalat- 

 ing in the preceding pages. 



The first point I have to notice is Plate VIII, whereon two specimens 

 of Tr. gangeticus, each of which display four well marked ocelli, are figured. 

 From this it is clear that Dr. Gray is no less incredulous than m3^self of the 

 correctness of Dr. Anderson's observation that this species never presents 

 ocelli, as I have shown above. This is a point however whereon further infor- 

 mation is desirable, and I shall look with some interest to what Dr. Anderson 

 may subsequently have to urge in corroboration of his view. The next species 

 I would notice is Nilssonia formosa, p. 45, under which head Dr. Gray 

 expresses himself as follows : — " It appears that this and the other Trionyx, 

 marked " Pegu," do not really come from that place ; for although the collec- 

 tion was sold as from " Pegu," it contained many specimens from other parts 

 of Hindustan." 



The above sentence, as it stands, is extremely unintelligible. In the 

 first place, hy whom were the specimens marked as coming from Pegu, which 

 in reality came from somewhere else, and what is meant by marlcing ? I do 

 not remember that I ever marked any Trionyx^ and I certainly challenge Dr. 

 Gray to substantiate his assertion by producing some of the many specimens 

 sold by me as coming from Pegu, but in reality coming from Hindustan. As 

 a matter of fact, I can assure Dr. Gray that, if Nilssonia was described from 

 a specimen in spirit in my collection, it assuredly came from Pegu, and Dr. 

 Gray has been much misinformed by any one who has asserted the contrary. 

 But why does not Dr. Gray give his authority for now stating that Nilssonia 

 does not come from Pegu. Had he done so, the rectification of such incessant 

 and petty errors would not be the never-ending task it is. Then again what 

 is '* the other Trionyx marked Pegu," and to whom is Dr. Gray indebted for 

 the information that the two adult skulls of Trionyx procured by me in Pegu, 

 both of which moreover perished by my revolver bullet, did not come from 

 that province ? Till Dr. Gray condescends to state the authority on which he 



