L. G. ANDERSSON, REPTILES AND BATRACHIANS ETC. 7 



Lygodactylus tolampyge Grand. 



Grandidier, Ann. Se. Nat. Zool. {5) 15, 1872, art. 20, p. 8; 

 MocQUARD, Bull. Soc. PUl. Paris (8) 7, 1894—95, p. 94. 



One specimen ^7io 1906. S:te Marie de Marovoay. 



If Lygodactylus tolampyce Grand, is to be regarded as a true 

 species, distinguished from L. madagascariensis Boettger, 

 I believe that this example must be reckoned to the first men- 

 tioned species. It completely corresponds, however, with 

 L. madagascariensis too, except the under surface of the tail, 

 where we find distinctly enlarged scales, arranged in a median 

 row at least on the posterior part. On the base of the t^il the 

 enlarged scales are placed rather irregularly, though on this 

 part, too, they are in the middle of the under surface. 



Geckolepis maculata Peters. 



BouLGR., Cat. Liz. I, p. 192. 



One specimen; S:te Marie de Marovoay, ^79 1906, in the 

 house. It lives together with Hemidactylus frenatus but is 

 not common. 



Homopholis heterolepis Boulgr. 



BouLGR., Ann. Nat. Hist. (6) 17, 1896, p. 447. 



One spcimen; Andranolava, under the loose bark of a large 

 tree. 



The species is established by Boulenger by a specimen 

 from the Southwest of Madagascar, and I am now able to state 

 that it also occurs in the northern part of the great island. The 

 specimen agrees very well with Boulenger' s description, but 

 differs by showing a distinct claw on the thumb as well on the 

 inner toe in opposition to Boulenger's statement, according 

 to which the absence of claw on the inner digits should be 

 characteristic for the genus Homopholis. An examination of 

 two specimens of the other species of that genus, H. ivahlhergii 

 Smith, which are kept in the Roy al museum in Stockholm, shoAvs, 

 liowever, that in this species too there are claws on all digits, 

 though they are rather difficult to discover in the smallest of 

 the two specimens. Probably the presence of claws is a cha- 

 racter of the genus, and what Boulenger says in this respect 

 seems to be a mistake. 



Steindachner shows also (Sitzber. Akad. Wiss. Wien 

 1907, JO. 1539) that the same state of things is to be found in 



