1847.] Reply to the Minute of Capt. Munro. 11/1 



nomenclature of which is now antiquated, I consulted a gentleman well 

 known for his attainments in this branch of Zoology, in the presence, too 

 (as it happened), of another eminent naturalist, W. H. Benson, Esq. j and 

 may remark that the name Acrochordus, with a mark of doubt, was not of 

 my suggestion ; nor that pi. XLII, fig. 2, represented the young of pi. XLI, 

 fig. 1, though I still entertain the opinion that it does so. The supposed 

 Dipsas I so assigned, with a note of interrogation however, from its general 

 resemblance to the common D. trigonatus, combined with the fact of the 

 head being expanded as usual in this genus : but where figures are admitted 

 to be " bad enough to favor any guess," a less harsh tone of criticism might, 

 I think, have been advantageously adopted, and even a private suggestion 

 or two might have been offered and thankfully responded to, as a preferable 

 mode of promoting the interests and the harmony of the Society.* 



The birds treated of are numerous, and I believe are all correctly assigned ; 

 but unfortunately I made the one sad oversight of writing Grus cinerea, Lin., 

 instead of Grus cinerea, Bechstein ; an error which I could scarcely have 

 failed to rectify when correcting the press, and which assuredly is made the 

 most of by Capt. Munro, by the mode in which he has notified it. He says 

 — " Grus was not a genus, nor Ardea cinerea a species, of Linnaeus." I 

 think, however, he will find that the latter is a particularly well known 

 species so named by Linnaeus, though not referring to the Grus ; which name 

 seems to have been first used in a generic sense by Mcehring. Again, I 

 need scarcely say I knew well that Capra cegagrus was Gmelin's species, and 



* I quote here all that I deemed it necessary to write of the four snakes particularly 

 referred to by Capt. Munro, who, after complaining of my guessing* what they were, 

 proceeds to offer a few guesses himself ! 



"PI. XLI, fig. 1. Acrochordus? Bamoo-ee, or Dwo-moo-ee. It is not possible to 

 determine what this snake is, without a knowledge of the actual species. Perhaps it 

 may be a large Typhlops. 



" PI. XLII, fig. 2. Acrochordus? This is probably the young of the species repre- 

 sented in pi. XLI, fig. 1. The originals of both figures were procured at Issakhai. 



" PI. XL1II, Dipsas? Tropidonotus? It is not possible to determine what this is 

 meant for, without a specimen for reference. It is probably a Dipsas ? Procured in 

 the Derajat. 



"PI. XLIV, fig. 2. Dipsas? Alteran-nag, or Gorah-dang. Probably the young 

 of the species figured in PI. XLII1. This and the next were procured at Buhawal- 

 pore." 



Surely it is much better to express doubt in such cases than to pronounce dogmati- 

 cally ? Of myself, I would not have undertaken what I consider such useless labour, 'as 

 to attempt to determine species so wretchedly represented , the scutation, for instance, 

 being expressed by simple cross-imes. 



