282 Records oj the Indian Museum. [Vol. Ill, against Major Wall's views as to the species of Dipsadomorphus (which are based on a great deal more material than is often the case) as against the tendency they illustrate. If every little differ-ence between individuals or sets of individuals is to be regarded as of specific value, "philosophical" zoology must cease to exist, and all zoologists must busy themselves in searching for such differ-ences as diligently as the stamp-collector counts the number of per-forations on his specimens. N. Annandale. BATRACHIA. Notes on Indian Batrachia : — I. Rana vicina , Stoliczka. — Raiia vicina was described in 1872 by the late Dr. F. Stoliczka, and the type specimen, which came from Murree, is still in the Indian Museum, its registered number being 9147. Mr. Boulenger in his volume on the Reptiles and Batrachia in the '' Fauna " (1890) queried the species as a synon}^! of R. liebigii , Giinther, but Mr. W. ly. Sclater, in his list of the Batrachia in the collection of the Indian Museum (1892), regarded it as distinct. In 1905 Mr. Boulenger suggested that the form was identical with the species he had described in 1882 as Rana hlanfordii, a view which he confirmed in 1907 after examining specimens of R. blanfordii from the neighbourhood of Naini Tal. Accepting this view, I described (1908) the tadpole of the form common at Naini Tal as that of R. vicina ^ pointing out the characters in which it differed from the larva of R. plcskii and R. liehigii. Having recently, how-ever, had occasion to compare considerable numbers of specimens from the Western Himalayas with the type of R. vicina, I detected what appeared to be constant differences. Besides the type there was one other specimen in the collection from the Western Hima-layas identified by Mr. Sclater as /^.wtcma, namely, a large individual from Simla presented mau}^ years ago by Lieut. A. Newnham. A careful comparison between these two specimens convinced me that they represented the same species , and that this species differed from the form common at Naini Tal. The only difference that I could detect between the two specimens was that the type of R. vicina was considerably smaller than the specimen from Simla. I therefore sent the latter to Mr. Boulenger, who agrees with me that it is not his R blanfordii and regards it as a specimen of R. liebi^ii. Without seeing the type he naturally prefers not to express an opinion as to its identity, but he has courteously asked me to publish a note on the subject. The following is a summary of what can be discovered about the two forms ; for I think that there can be no doubt that R. vicina is distinct from R. blanfordii. R. blanfordii is distinguished from R. liebigii (i) by its smaller size, its maximum length without the limbs being 49 mtji. while R. liebigii grows at least 90 mm. long ; (2) by the fact that the males
BioStor
