OCR Text |
Show 1870.] MR. THEOBALD ON CERTAIN SPECIES OF TORTOISES. 675 T. stellata, of which T. megalopus, Blyth, was a synonym (vide J. A. S. B. xxxii. p. 83). In Burmah two other species occurred, T. elongata, Blyth, and T. platynotus, Blyth. The latter species was closely allied to T. stellata of India, and replaced it throughout the countries east of the Bay of Bengal. The third species of Testudo from Burmah was T. phayrei, Blyth (J. A. S. B. xxii. p. 639), of which Mr. Theobald considered T. falconeri, Gray, to be a mere synonym. An excellent description of this species had been given by Blyth (I. ci), founded on two stuffed specimens presented by Captain Phayre, the largest of which measured 20 inches in a straight line, or 22| over the curve, the second specimen being slightly smaller, though more aged. In his ' Catalogue of the Reptiles in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal' Mr. Theobald had entered inadvertently the larger or type specimen of T. phayrei as " T. indicai" whilst the smaller specimen (which was in a very dilapidated state) had been entered as Manouria emys. Both these mistakes Mr. Theobald attributed to his own culpable haste, as the type was easily recognizable, and had been at once detected by Dr. Anderson, the present curator. However, it required only a glance to see that Dr. Gunther had erred iu uniting T. phayrei, Blyth, with Manouria, inasmuch as, though T. phayrei possessed a divided caudal plate, yet its pectoral shields united to form a suture, as in true Testudo, and bore no resemblance to those plates in Manouria. The smaller and more aged specimen above alluded to had been originally stuffed, but when examined by Mr. Theobald was found to be in a very fragmentary condition. On inquiries being made how it had come into this state, Mr. Theobald had been informed that the specimen in question had been taken away by Dr. Falconer (when engaged in preparing his Catalogue of the Asiatic Society's Sewalik fossils) and buried, in order to separate the bones. The dermal plates were now consequently entirely separated from the skeleton, most of them, together with the skull and most of the limb-bones, being missing. The skeleton itself bore the names of the different bones written upon them in ink either by Dr. Falconer himself or by Dr. Walker, who had assisted him in the preparation of the above-named catalogue. As the skull in question had not, as it seemed, ever been restored to the Indian Museum through the inadvertence of Dr. Falconer when returning the rest of the specimen, it was but reasonable to conclude that it had remained in his possession, and had eventually thus passed into the British Museum. In default, therefore, of more exact information, M r. Theobald held that the evidence before him pointed to the conclusion that the skull whereon T. falconeri, Gray, had been based was no other than the identical skull of T. phayrei, Blyth, missing from the Calcutta Museum. 3. TESTUDO ELONGATA, Blyth (Gray, I. c. p. 171). This was the type of Dr.-Gray's genus Peltastes, a name, as Dr. Stoliczka had pointed out to Mr. Theobald, preoccupied by Rossi in 1807 for a Hymenopteron, by Agassiz in 1838 for an Echino- |