

Notes on some Eeptilia and Amphibia from Central India, — 

 ly William T. Blaneord, E. G. S., C. M. Z. S., &c. 

 (With, plates XIV— XVI.) 

 [Received 2nd August, read 3rd September, 1870.] 

 A collection, chiefly of Eeptilia, made by me during the cold and 

 hot seasons of 1869-70 in a part of India hitherto but little ex- 

 plored by herpetologists, contains several interesting forms, and a 

 few lizards which, appear to have been previously undescribed. 

 My principal object in collecting lias been to obtain . somewhat 

 more exact information as to the range of different species, a sub- 

 ject in which, as was pointed out byGrunther in his Reptiles of 

 British India, very much remains to be done. I was at first struck 

 by the herpetological provinces into which Dr. Gf ii n t h e r has 

 divided Peninsular India, and which differ greatly from those 

 which appeared to me, from a study of the landshells, birds and 

 mammals, to be the great natural zoological divisions of the country, 

 and I wished, before publishing any observations on the subject, 

 to ascertain, to some extent at least, whether the distribution of the 

 Eeptilia differs in any way from that of the other groups upon 

 which I had founded my conclusions. 



I soon became satisfied that it does not, and that Dr. Q ii n t h e r 

 was misled by the very imperfect information available in Europe, 

 and especially by the confused ideas which have hitherto prevailed as 

 to the affinities of the Indian fauna. It is naturally very difficult 

 for any one unacquainted with a country to form a correct opinion 

 of its physical geography, and of the distribution of its fauna as 

 affected by physical characters. Another very great difficulty is 

 correctly to appreciate the comparative value of the evidence before 

 the compiler. In such matters local knowledge is essential. It 

 should also be borne in mind that, until recently, the importance of 

 accuracy in determining the exact localities of specimens, brought 

 from distant parts of the world, was not appreciated by European 

 naturalists, indeed it is to be feared that many scarcely appreciate 

 it even now, and that the labels in European Museums are but too 

 often misleading. A naturalist in Europe must depend entirely 



43 



