38 
Records of Ike Geological Survey of India. 
[VOL. II. 
The epidermoid plates in Pangsh. tecta, and other allied species, are subject to a great deal 
of variation, which is especially considerable in the form of the vertebral plates, occasionally 
so much so that they cease to be of great specific importance. The most variable are the 
first and the fifth vertebral plates. In the Indian Museum there exists a remarkably large 
specimen of Pangsh. tecta from Oachar. Its first vertebral is pentagonal, the second quadran¬ 
gular, third rather large, of regular form, fourth very large, bell shaped, the fifth is three-fifths 
of the length of the former, of almost equal width throughout, truncate in front, sub-angular 
laterally, and obliquely pointed posteriorly, while, as a rule, it is truncate behind (see fig. 2, pi. 1). 
There are twelve marginals on each side, instead ot eleven, the tenth being divided by a furrow 
in continuation of the suture which separates the fifth costal from the fifth vertebral. The 
eaudals are very small. 
Comparing the epidermoid shields of some of the specimens of P. tecta with those of 
Pangsh. tentoria, it is by no means easy to point out any very remarkable distinctions, but 
the latter species can be always recognised by its broad, depressed back, the sides of the 
carapace being distinctly convex, and the general form of the shell more elongated. (See 
Theobald's Catalogue of Reptiles, etc., Jour. Asiat, Soc., Bengal, Extra No. 146, 1868, p. 14). 
(fiinther’s figure of Pangsh. tentoria is by no means characteristic, being almost uiidistin- 
guishable from that of P. tecta. 
The costal shields are, on the contrary, much more constant, and they do not appear to 
vary essentially in allied species and genera. In all the species of Pangshura which I have 
examined they were arranged quite identically. 
Mr. Theobald proposed for the specimen here figured the new specific name “ Namadicus,” 
while Dr. Falconer, in an essay already written in 1844 (see Falconer’s Pal. Mem., Vol. I, 
1868, p. 382), bad identified another specimen found in the Sevalik strata with the recent 
species. The examination of the Nerbudda specimen has strongly confirmed Dr. Falconer’s 
investigations; that celebrated naturalist summing up his results in the words, “ that we are 
not justified in constituting a difference where we do not find it.” Judging from all the 
solid parts of the carapace, it cannot, I think, be reasonably questioned that the Nerbudda 
and the Sevalik fossils, as described by Dr. Falconer, are both of the same species, and identical 
with recent specimens of that species. It might, of course, be said by some naturalists that 
the fossil specimens may have been, for instance, quite differently coloured, and this would 
be sufficient to constitute a specific distinction. Such hypotheses cannot, however, bo admitted 
as having any value in pointing out specific distinctions of fossils. 
I have no doubt that the specimen from which Dr. Falconer’s description was taken 
is a true Pangsh. tecta, but it seems very doubtful that it was the identical specimen figured 
by Dr. Murchison on Plate 32 in Falconer’s Pal. Mem., Vol. I. I have little doubt that this 
last one is also a Pangsh. tecta, but it can scarcely be the identical specimen which Dr. Fal¬ 
coner described. Dr. Murchison (in a note on page 382) pronounces the figured specimen to 
be the original of Dr. Falconer’s description, but when writing the explanation to the plate 
some of the differences must have struck him, and here he leaves the identity of the 
specimen doubtful. On page 383 Dr. Falconer says, with reference to the first vertebral, 
(of the epidermoid coat), “ the exact form is not distinctly seen, though it seems to converge 
less * * In the figure two-thirds of the first vertebral are broken off, and no con¬ 
vergence is perceptible. Farther, the author says, “ the outline of the fourth scute is not 
distinguishable in the fossil, and the fifth one is wanting.” In Dr. Murchison’s figure the 
fifth shield appears perfectly preserved. With regard to the fourth vertebral scute there is an 
error in Dr. Murchison’s figure. The draughtsman has in place of the outline of the 
epidermal shield marked the outlines of three osseous plates, and of these he does not seem 
to have given the outlines quite correctly. The fourth epidermoid vertebral scute extends over 
three complete osseous vertebrals and an additional one-half, or nearly that, on either end (see 
pi. I, fig. 2). It is important to point out this distinction, though every one, looking at 
Dr. Murchison’s figure, will readily notice that some mistake of that kind must have 
occurred. For no Emys or Pangshura possesses seven scutes in the epidermoid covering, 
and if intended as a representation of osseous shields, the number is, as I have already 
stated, too small. In spite of this discrepancy and the somewhat strongly bi-tuberculated 
second vertebral scute, I can hardly think that the specimen figured by Dr. Murchison 
belongs to any other species than Pangsh. tecta. 
