''%h'"] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 487 



Sceloporus scalaris from the region iu question. On the other hand, 

 Professor Cope records " seven specimens " received from San Diego, 

 Texas, as ^'■Sceloporus ? scalaris ^^ (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1888, p. 397) 

 as if he was uncertain as to their belonging- to this species, an uncer- 

 tainty which I am inclined to extend to all the alleged sj)ecimens of S. 

 smZam from southwestern Texas. That I am unable to express any 

 final opinion upon the San Diego specimens is due to the fact that the 

 specimens, although stated to belong to the Museum, have not been 

 found in spite of an extended search. 



There are two more Texan specimens in the collection, viz, No. 11457, 

 collected by Mr. George B. Sennett iu " Texas," presumably somewhere 

 on the lower Rio Grande between the mouth and Hidalgo where Mr. 

 Sennett was collecting during April and May, 1877. The other si)eci- 

 men is No. 4110, from " Redmond's Ranch " on the Rio Grande, the 

 same as Bellville, about 70 miles below Laredo. 



There remains one specimen which requires special mention on ac- 

 count of the uncertainty of its origin. It has a tin tag attached to it 

 numbered 2882, which, if correct, would give it '• China, Nuevo Leon, 

 Mexico" for a locality, and Lieutenant Couch for a collector, but to 

 one of its legs is tied an original parchment label which reads, "4108, 

 Utah, December," and the record book gives the information that it 

 was "removed from No. 2877," a bottle containing numerous speci- 

 mens of Sc. gratiosus collected at Salt Lake, Utah, by Captain Stans- 

 bury. Several other "removals" took place at the same time, however, 

 and it is almost certain that both numbers are wrong. At any rate it 

 would not do to credit Utah with S. variabilis on the strength of the 

 present specimen. 



In order to facilitate the identitication of this species, which has been 

 so singularly overlooked within our territory, I may point out some of 

 the most salient characters b}' which it may be recognized. 



Sceloporus variahilis differs from all the species hitherto found within 

 the United States by having the scales of the sides of the body con- 

 siderably smaller than those of the back; a white half moon-shaped 

 mark on the side above the insertion of the fore limb is present in both 

 sexes and is quite characteristic. The male, moreover, is readily dis 

 tinguished by the tiank patches of a pink (in alcohol grayish) color, 

 which come very clo.^e together on the belly and are bordered by a 

 dark bluish line, the latter joining a large daik })atch on the shoulder 

 behind the white semilunar mark. Among the other characters the 

 following may be mentioned: Head-shields wrinkled; lateral scales 

 directed obliquely upwards; femoral pores about twelve on each side, 

 not ipeeting medially across the b« lly ; about fifteen dorsal scales in a 

 head length; anterior frontal divided longitutiiually. 



Sc. scalaris, on the other hand, is easily distinguished by having the 

 series of femoral pores nearly meet across the belly; the scales on the 

 sides are nearly as large as those of the back, and these are much larger 



