EMYS LUTARIA. 
although the description is generally that of Terrapene europera*. The three 
descriptions of this author, however, are, with the slight and doubtful excep¬ 
tions I have just alluded to, referrible to the latter animal; and had it not 
been for the figure I have mentioned, I should not have thought myself justi¬ 
fied in retaining the name of lutaria. 
Mr. Gray, appretiating the difficulties with which the subject was obscured, 
cut the knot instead of untying it, and named the species “Emys vulgaris , 
Common Terrapin,”—a term which could only have been assigned to it from 
his having “ seen more than twenty living,” for it certainly is not more nu¬ 
merous than many other species of the genus. 
The figure and description of Emys caspica given by the traveller Gmelin, 
which Wagler calls “ Descript, et icon pessim.” and afterwards “ Icon misera- 
billima,” must have been—for I have not seen them—insufficient to have 
realized the identity of that species with the one now under consideration. 
A good figure and an excellent description of Emys caspica , given by Wagler 
in the second fasciculus of his “ Descriptiones et leones Amphibiorum,” enable 
me, however, now decidedly to conclude that this also must be considered as 
a synonym of my present species: and this view is confirmed by the exami¬ 
nation of a specimen of Emys caspica in the British Museum, authenticated, 
if I mistake not, by its undoubted habitat. 
Upon the whole, then, I have come to the conclusion that Lacepede’s figure 
of “la bourbeuse” indicates the present species, on which ground I have 
retained the name of E. lutaria , and that it is identical with E. caspica of 
Gmelin and Schweigger. 
The best description which has hitherto appeared of it is that of Wagler, 
to which I have before alluded; and his account of its localities, as well as of 
its habits, is so terse and satisfactory, that I cannot do better than give it in 
his own words. 
“ Habitat ad mare Caspicum ac in Dalmatia, prope Ragusam, in Sylva Val 
di Umbla dicta, montibus altis adumbrata ac vegetationis mira pulchritudine, 
ficis, cypressis, palmisque luxuriante. In medio vallis fons paludem parvam 
* This is not a solitary instance of a discrepancy between the figures and descriptions in the Work of Lacepede ; his description 
professing to belong to Testudo geometrica being taken from a specimen of T. actinodes, whilst the figure is a correct one of the species 
named. 
