54 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 122 



No. 5 usually seemed to ignore No. 3 when she was on the ground, though 

 once when she ran towards the hibiscus bush he chased her away before she reached 

 it. I never saw him leave his perch to chase her except on this occasion. How- 

 ever, if he happened to encounter No. 3 while he was on the ground for some other 

 reason, most frequently to catch an insect, he would frequently chase her for a 

 short distance. Sometimes she would move out of his way under such situations 

 without his paying any attention, and I never saw her display to him under any 

 circumstances. The repeated chases from the hibiscus, and I recorded 15 of them, 

 did not seem to deter No. 3 from returning to it. 



(lib) No. 5's activity range also overlapped that of No. 4, a 36 mm male, who 

 lived primarily on the ground among the dead leaves and used a dead stick as a 

 principal perch. Like No. 3, No. 4 visited No. 5's hibiscus but did so much less 

 frequently. No. 5 chased No. 4 on these occasions and, more frequently than with 

 No. 3, chased No. 4 before he actually reached the bush. Both these differences 

 between No. 3 and No. 4 may have been because No. 4 had farther to travel to 

 reach the hibiscus than did No. 3, but it may also have been because No. 4 was 

 larger and No. 5 more aggressive towards him. No. 5 also occasionally came from 

 the hibiscus over to No. 4's perch and once, at least, seemed to do so in order to 

 chase No. 4, who fled and then hid in the leaves. More frequently, when No. 5 

 came in this direction to catch an insect he would stop on No. 4's perch before re- 

 turning to his liibiscus. Sometimes he would encounter and chase No. 4 in the 

 process, sometimes No. 4 would move out of the way without being chased, and 

 once No. 4 displayed at No. 5 when No. 5 neared him in the vicinity of No. 4's 

 perch. On this last occasion No. 5 ignored No. 4 completely. Before the end of 

 the study period, No. 4 disappeared from the study area. Whether he died or 

 moved away I don't know and, if he moved, have no idea of the influence of No. 

 5's chases. 



(lie) No. 7 was a 35 mm female who used as principal perches a corn plant 

 and a fence post nearby. No. 5 also visited the fence post not infrequently but 

 was never seen on the corn plant, so that the overlap between these two was not 

 complete. Relatively few encounters between these two were seen and none on 

 the fence post which they both used. No. 7 did not visit No. 5's hibiscus but we 

 saw three chases, one of them quite persistent, which seemed to start when No. 7 

 approached the hibiscus. In only one of these could I see why. In this case, 

 No. 7 was chasing a smaller lizard and the chasing carried her into No. 5's vicinity 

 near the hibiscus. In the final chase observed No. 5 was chasing a smaller lizard 

 and his chase brought him close to No. 7. He stopped chasing the smaller lizard 

 and chased No. 7 for a bit. 



(lid) The smallest lizard whom I saw No. 5 interact with was No. 6, a 29 mm 

 male [not shown in fig. 9 because it appeared at a later date]. During the period 

 when these two interactions occurred, No. 6 was living on the ground near the 

 hibiscus and being chased frequently by No. 3 and particularly by Nos. 4 and 7. 

 Once No. 6 approached No. 5's hibiscus and No. 5 ran towards him and dew- 

 lapped; No. 6 fled immediately. The second time. No. 5 chased No. 6 when No. 4 

 had chased No. 6 towards No. 5. The first of these encounters is curious because 

 it was one of the two times when I saw No. 5 dewlap, the other was in response 

 to a small stake-out I introduced into his area. No. 5 was not sexually mature 

 and consequently was not dewlapping either in disputes or in advertisement dis- 

 play at this time and he is the smallest male I ever saw dewlap. 



(lie) On either side of No. 5 lived two lizards approaching him in size: No. 15, 

 a 40 mm male who lived in an oleander bush on one side, and No. 11, a 44 mm 

 male, who lived in the next hibiscus on the other side. These three lizards seldom 

 entered the activity ranges of each other and never were seen to visit each other's 



