— 70 — 



In Verh. Zool. Bot. Gesellsch., Wien 1901, p. 608 Wernes 

 mentions a Gehyra from New Guinea which he regards as G. inter- 

 stitialis, although with much doubt. It differs namely from the last 

 mentioned species in several points, especially in the great development 

 of the interdigital web, as the following quotation from Werner proves : 

 «Die Finger und Zehen sind bis zur Basis der Erweiterungen durch 

 Spannhäute verbunden, also in einer Ausdehnung wie bei den Eidechsen 

 überhaupt höchstens noch bei Luperosaurus» . By this characteristic 

 Werner's and my specimens appear to agr.ee very well which also is 

 the case with regard to some other points, and possibly they ought to 

 be referred to the same species. Werner's specimen is said to have the 

 inner toe clawless, which difference, however, probably is of no great 

 importance, this claw being very difficult to discern even in my specimen. 



As Werner points out, bis specimen appears to be related to 

 G. marginata Blgr as well, which is said to be identical with G. flscheri 

 Strauch. To judge from Boulenger's description in Cat. Liz. III, 

 p. 486, as well as from that of Strauch, in Mem. Acad. Sc. St. Peters- 

 bourg, Ser. 7, T. 35, p. 29, and from that of Oudemans, in Zool. Forsch. - 

 Reise Austr. von Semon, Bd. 5, Lief. 1, p. 134, Jena 1894, my species 

 seems to differ from the last mentioned species in the following points. 

 The interdigital web is larger, the lamellae under the distal portion of 

 the fingers and toes are divided, the labials are fewer, and the tail is 

 provided with regulär, transversely dilated plates below, in addition to 

 which the marginal fold seems to be much less developed. 



By the subdigital lamelke, some of which are divided, some single, 

 this new species appears to be intermediate betweeu Gehyra interst itialis 

 and Gehyra marginata. All these species are evidently nearly allied to 

 heac other, but I do not believe they can be regarded as a single species. 

 According to my opinion such a species should prove to exhibit too 

 large variations for a species of this genus, as may be seen from the 

 following table. 



