Note on Pangshuka tecta, and two other species of Chelonia , from the newer tertiary 
deposits of the Nerbudda Valley, by Feed. Stoliczka, ph. d., Paleontologist, Geol. 
Sure, of India. 
While engaged in the examination of the tertiary ( ? pleiocene) deposits of the valley of 
the Nerbudda river in 1858, Mr. W. Theobald, Junior, obtained, among other fossils, a 
few remains of Chelonia which are of great interest as throwing light upon the then 
existing representatives of this reptilian order. 
Mr. Theobald described these deposits at some length in a paper “On the tertiary 
and alluvial deposits of the central portion of the Nerbudda valley” (Memoirs, Geol. Surv., 
India, Vol. IT, p. 279). He distinguishes two groups of beds, an upper and a lower. To 
both of these a large number of the fossils is common, but Mr. Theobald is inclined to 
think that those of the upper group may have been, partially at least, derived from the 
denudation of the lower group. The beds of this lower group are more fossiliferous than 
the others, but they can only be examined where they are exposed in the banks of the 
Nerbudda river itself, and in those of a few of the larger tributaries. The same author also 
gives a list of land and fresh-water shells found in these beds. Many of the species noted are 
still met with recent, and some appear to be identical with those determined by 
Prof. Ed. Forbes from the Sevalik strata (see Falconer’s Pakeont. Mem., Yol. I, p. 389). 
Of the vertebrate fossils also, several species are common to both the Nerbudda and Sevalik 
strata. Still some peculiarities in the Bovine and Pachyderm types have been pointed out, 
which seem to show that the deposits of the Nerbudda valley are younger than those of the 
Sevalik hills. On this point it is difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion from the 
examination of the fossils alone. The comparatively larger number of Bovines in the 
Nerbudda beds, as contrasted with the Pachyderms, the absence of Mastodons, &e., may be 
due to local causes. And further, the number of fossils as yet known from the Nerbudda is 
small, while from the Sevaliks, which have been examined more in detail, we have a large 
number of well determined species. The ouly question is, whether all the fossils which have 
been described from the Sevaliks really belong to one series of beds only, or whether they do 
not in reality represent somewhat distinct horizons (the Nahun series, the upper and lower 
Sevaliks, &c.) It is cei'tain that no particular attention was paid to these divisions when 
the earlier collections were made. Much is therefore still left to bo worked out, both in 
the Nerbudda and in the Sub-Himalayan country. 
In the present note I shall direct attention only to the Chelonian remains from the 
Nerbudda valley. Mr. W. Theobald, in his report quoted above, repeatedly states that 
Chelonian remains occur throughout the lower group, but that they are rare as compared 
with those of the Mammalia (see pp. 289, 290, 292). Besides these remains of Chelonia I am 
not aware that any other reptilian remains have been met with in the Nerbudda beds, 
although Saurians and others most probably existed within that area, as they do now, and 
as they did already during the time, and in the area, of the Sevalik deposits. 
These Chelonian. remains are refen ihle to throo species; one, which is sufficiently 
preserved, has been identified with the recent Pangshura tecta, and, of the three other 
fragments, one appears to belong to a recent Batagur, and the other two to a Trionyx. 
I shall give first a short description of these remains, and then add a few words 
respecting the conclusions resulting from this examination. 
Pangshuka tecta. Bell, sp., Plate I, Figs. 1, 2. 
Emys tectum. Boll, Monog. Tostudinarum. 
„ tecta. Gray, Illustrations of Indian Zoology. 
„ Namadiciis, Theobald, 1860, Mem. Geol. Surv., India, Vol. II, p, 295. 
Pangshura tecta, Gunther, 1864, Ueptilcs of India, p. 33. 
Emys tecta, Falconer’s Pal. Memoirs, 1868, Vol. I, p. 388. 
The shell of Pangshura tecta * has an elongated oval form. The centre of the back 
is elovated, more or loss distinctly carinate, the sides are rather flattened and slope at an 
angle of about 45°, which increase up to 50° towards both ends. The carapace is anteriorly 
* I have adopted Iiere the change in the specific name, tecta, as beliiR- more in accordance with the general 
system of nomenclature, although Bell said that Gray had misquoted the name teda instead of tectum, the roof of a 
house, which was intended to express the general form. 
