858 Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. [July> 



Graelin not Pallas is the authority for Capra OEgagrus. Grus was not 

 a genus, nor Ardea cinerea, a species of Linnaeus. 



Dr. M'Clelland has already in the 2d volume of the Calcutta Journal 

 of Natural History described several Affghan fishes from the late Dr. Griffith's 

 collection, and to Dr. M'C. apparently Mr. Blyth is indebted for the short 

 notes attached to this portion of the drawings. 



The names of the snakes have been guessed at in a most hap-hazard way. 

 Thus PI. XLI. fig, 1, though bad enough to favour any guess is not an Achro- 

 chordus, but most probably Boa Johnii. (Russell, Plate 16) called by Schlegel 

 Portrya Eryx. What possible reason can there be for supposing Plate XLII. 

 fig. 2, to be the young of the one just referred to ? Neither Plates XLIII. 

 nor XLIV. fig. 4 are Dipsas, which is a genus of tree snakes only with large 

 eyes and long, oval, or vertically contracted pupils. Plate XLVII. is most 

 likely Coluber anastomosatus, Daudin. 



With reference to a remark stated to have been made by Dr. Cantor ap- 

 proving of these lithographs, I am informed by that gentleman that the only 

 two he had seen at the time he made the remark (1842) were two fishes, Plates 

 XLYIII. and XLIX. which he thinks are good drawings. 



William Munro. 



Fort William, May 28th, 1847. 



I agree with Capt. Munro that these drawings are not worth publishing ; 

 the greater part of them are so bad that we might be pretty certain they never 

 could be like the animals they are intended to represent, even if we had not 

 the testimony of Captain Munro to the fact. As to the remuneration to be 

 given for describing them, whatever has been promised must of course be 

 fulfilled, but it is very annoying to see the funds of the Society expended so 

 uselessly. 



31s* May, 184/. J. W. Grant. 



I certainly cannot recommend the publication of such trash as these 

 Burnes' drawings are. I believe there is little if any thing new amongst them, 

 and if there be, it is almost impossible to identify their affinities, so wretch- 

 edly bad and incorrect are the figures. The fish are bad also, with fins and 

 forms not belonging to them, and no attention paid to the number of rays in 

 them. Consequently the difficulty Mr. Blyth has experienced in attempting 

 to identify them has been very great, and I am sure much more could not have 

 been done by him or any one else. Regarding the remuneration to Mr. 

 Blyth, I am a witness to the fact of its having been promised to him, and 1 

 cannot for a moment understand how there can be the slightest question 

 about its being granted to him. He is certainly entitled to it fully. 



R. W. G. Frith. 



