3fiscellaneoiis. 69 



The next species to which Mr. Martin requested the attention of 

 the meeting was a Varanus from the Isle of Mindanado, which he 

 regarded as hitherto undescribed. 



This Varanus, he observed, appeared to be closely allied to Va- 

 ranus chlorostiyma, Dum. and Bibr., differing, nevertheless, materi- 

 ally in the character of the scales of the body, and in the distribu- 

 tion of its markings. As in Varanus chlorostigma and Var. bivittatus, 

 the suborbital scales consist of a crescent of plates, broader than 

 long, encircled by small plates, which latter cover the suborbital 

 margin. The nostrils are rounded, and placed on each side of the 

 muzzle rather nearer the apex than in Var. chlorostigma ; the teeth 

 are also compressed with sharp edges very minutely dentated ; the 

 head is more produced than in Var. chlorostigma, being, in this re- 

 spect more like that of Var. bivittatus ; and the scales are larger, 

 coarser, and more irregular. 



For this new Varanus, Mr. Martin proposed the name of Varanus 

 Cuming i. 



Varanus Cumingi. Varan, caudd compressd^ narihus fere rO' 

 tundalis et rostri apicem versus positis ; lamellis suborbltalibus 

 incequalibus, se])tem vel octo ceteris quoad magnitudinem prce- 

 stantibus latisshnis, lineajnque semilunarem efficients bus ; dentibus 

 compressis, acutis, et delicate serratis ; corpore supra iiigro, 

 gultis ocellisque Jlacis ornato; abdomine aurantiaco. 

 Hab. apud Insulam Mindanado. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



ON THE GENUS SYNGNJTHUS, 



A translation of Prof. Fries' paper on the genus Syngnathus having 

 appeared in this Journal, we should not be doing justice to that gen- 

 tleman, were we to omit publishing the following correspondence 

 which has taken place between him and Prof. Wiegmann with refer- 

 ence to a note by the latter, which will be found at p. 100. vol. ii. 

 of the Annals. — Edit. 



" To Prof. Wiegmann. — In the third part of your Journal (Archiv 

 fiir Naturgeschichte) you endeavour to weaken my statement that 

 ' the specimen which served for the original of Bloch's figure was 

 S. cequoreus,' by the assertion that * the only specimen in Bloch's 

 collection is my >S^. Ophidion.' I am very sorry that you did not take 

 the trouble to compare Bloch's specimen with the figure, for you 

 would certainly have come to a contrary conclusion. I have never 

 seen Bloch's specimen, yet I still maintain that a S. Ophidion never 

 served for the original of the figure, because no S. Ophidion offers such 

 proportions as those presented by the figure. In no true >S^. Ophidion 

 Ccin the caudal fiu be placed in such relation to the anus ; the figure 



