72 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 



to St. Thomas. (1. c. p. 247.) This summer, however, Noble and 

 Wulsin found it upon St. Thomas, and both Noble and Ruthven found 

 it even more abundant upon St. Croix l^oth at Christiansted and Fredric- 

 sted. I am unable to find any difierence between the individuals from 

 the two islands. 



Leptodactylus albilabris (Gunther). 



I was at first inclined to believe that a series of examples collected by 

 Ruthven and Noble at St. Croix were different from those from St. Thomas 

 (the type locality) and Porto Rico. Since, however, I have had the 

 opportunity to examine some specimens which Doctor Stejneger loaned 

 me from both these localities. I am convinced that all are probably the 

 same. These Leptodactyli are curious and puzzling "frogs" and large 

 series should always be gathered when possible, as some peculiar varia- 

 tions occur. 



Sphaerodactylus tnacrolepis Gunther. 



This species was described from St. Croix and subsequently recorded 

 from St. Thomas. This summer both Messrs Noble and Wulsin, as well 

 as Doctor Ruthven and his assistant Mr. Gaige, visited both these islands, 

 staying for some days at St. Croix on their return voyage, where Ruth- 

 ven, Gaige and Noble did extensive collecting together. Nearly a hun- 

 dred Sphaerodactyli were secured on both these islands. All are referable 

 to one species, which agrees with what Garman has called, without doubt 

 correctly, Sphaerodactylus macrolepis. On St. Croix the lizards were 

 secured not only at Christiansted but also at Fredricsted, at the opposite 

 end of the island. Some were secured about houses in the towns, many 

 others in the country. The collection makes it quite evident to me that 

 but a single species of Sphaerodactylus is found in St. C'roix as is 

 usual on all but the Greater Antilles. In 1862 Reinhardt and Lutken 

 described S. microlepis on a specimen said to have come from St. Croix, 

 but the describers stated clearly that the locality record needed confirm- 

 ation. Beside this they identified their new form with A. Dumeril's 

 S. fantasticus variete a taches noires, which came from St. Lucia. The 

 diagnosis of S. microlepis certainly recalls a Lesser Antillean form, and 

 the type probably never came from St. Croix. I suggest then that the 

 name probably belongs to the St. Lucia species, in which case S. 

 melanospilus Bocourt, also from St. Lucia, becomes a synonym of micro- 

 lepis, which is probably confined to that island. 



Sphaerodactylus fantasticus Dumeril & Bibron. 



It becomes increasingly evident that the species of this genus do not 

 range widely through the Antillean chain. Anderson (Bih. K. Svensk. 

 vet.-akad. Handl., 1900, 26, afd. 4, No. 1, p. 27) has examined Sparr- 

 man's type of S. sputator which came from St. Eustatius and said that 

 it was the same as S. fantasticus of Dumeril et Bibron, which was said 

 to have come from Martinique. There is no evidence that Anderson 

 made a direct comparison hence it is wise until we know to the contrary 



