268 SPHAERODACTYLUS. 



distance of tip of snout from centre of eye ; scales of middorsal region distinctly 

 reduced in size but not forming a distinct granular zone ; mental large followed 

 by a few enlarged postmentals; scales of throat small, keeled as are the larger, 

 rhombic, imbricating scales of chest and belly; scales of tail very small, keeled, 

 not much elongate, forming weakly defined whorls. 



Colour: — Brown; head, neck, and throat with bold black stripes and bars. 

 Indistinct wide cross-bars on body. (In 10,787, a male) Boulenger {loc. cit., 

 p. 224) quotes Bocourt who is speaking of the synonymous melanospilos : "Bo- 

 court adds that the ventral scales are keeled and that there are no enlarged 

 inferior caudal scales. Back with dark spots and large transverse markings." 

 This may represent merely a variant or be the female colouration. 



Dimensions: — Tip of snout to vent 31 mm. 



Vent to tip of tail 25 +mm. 



Greatest width of head 5 mm. 



Tip of snout to ear 8 . 5 mm. 



Fore leg 9 mm. 



Hind leg 12 mm. 



Remarks: — The fact that it was not realized that Reinhardt and Liitken 

 themselves correctly questioned the accuracy of St. Croix as the type-locality of 

 microlepis, has given rise to the impression that it has a wide distribution through- 

 out the Lesser Antilles. In fact Boulenger says (Proc. Zool. soc. London, 1891, 

 p. 353). "This is evidently the most widely distributed of the West-Indian 

 Sphaerodadyli, since it is known from St. Croix {Liitken), Dominica and St. 

 Lucia." The St. Croix record rests on an incorrect label, while Boulenger him- 

 self points out colour-characters which separate Dominican individuals and had 

 the binocular microscope been in use in 1891 other characters would probably 

 have been revealed. There was apparently no confusion in Boulenger's mind 

 with the other Dominican species which he called copei Steindachner. This form, 

 as is pointed out elsewhere, is so unlike Steindachner's excellent figure of copei 

 that one wonders how both Giinther and Boulenger can have applied this name 

 to the Dominican individuals. Copei has been, with fear and trembling, made to 

 replace piciwroiMsGarman ; it had no type-locality; while the Dominica sphaero- 

 dactyls are here called monilifer. This is only a provisional arrangement until 

 the type can be critically examined. It may even develop that there is but one 

 species, monilifer, in Dominica and that that has been confused with microlepis 

 thus accounting for the Dominican records for the latter species. 



