^"iV'JlI^'] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 513 



description. I have rei'xaminod the .speeimeii with great, care ami 

 ruiiiuteiiess, and with tlie original description before me I note the fol- 

 lowing discrepancies: 



The number of scale-rows in the type of L. roseofusca is not thirty- 

 six, but at least forty; the number of scales in the orbital ring is nine', 

 on one side, ten on the other, not seven and eight; anterior fused into 

 a large preocular on one side only; loreals ^ on one side only, :}on 

 the other. 



When I add that 1 have only been able to count forty-three scale- 

 rows in the type of L. myriolepis, it will bo seen that the diflerence 

 between the alleged two species, or varieties, has been reduced to ii 

 dirterence of three scale rows, as the slight ditJ'erence in coloration, 

 now entirely obliterated, is hardly worth mentioning, the other speci- 

 mens showing that no line can be drawn in this respect. The ditler- 

 ence alluded to is so slight, however, and the irregularity of the number 

 of scale rows in the same individual so great, that I have no hesitation 

 in now ])roTi()uncing L. roseofusca and myrioJvpis to be the same thing, 

 and as the former name is mentioned first, the species will have to take 

 that name. 



Practically identical with these specimens are three others received 

 from ]\Ir. Orcutt (U. S. Nat. JMus., Nos. 10327, lOSaO, and 14120). They 

 demonstrate the great variability of the scales which have been called 

 subloreals (those written below the lino in the diagnoses), though in 

 reality only detached pieces of the supralabials*), and, on the other 

 hand, they seem to establish the numl)er three as the characteristic 

 number of the true loreals. 



The tyi)e of L. sinqylex (U. S. ^'at. Mus., No. 13810) agrees in the 

 main with the above, the only difference consisting in the small num- 

 ber of scales in the eye-ring. Hut as the number varies between nine 

 and ten in the other specimens, and as the paucity is due to the ]>lain 

 and irregular fusion of several of the scales, I have no hesitation in 

 saying that the above name should in the future only figure in the 

 synonymical lists of L. roseofusca. 



The status of L. orcutt i differs materially from that of tiie names 

 already discussed. The low number of scale rows stands so far unap- 

 j>roached, but for its distinction I rely more upon the number of true 

 loreals, which is only two tliough in all the other specimens of the 

 genus there are three true loreals. This low number is not due to fusion 

 of any two shields, nor to a shortening of the <listam'e between the eye 

 and the nostril. In addition hereto we have the uiuisually i)rotruding 

 rostral, so that, all taken into consideration, L. orcutti seems to be the 



" It will lio soon that I h.avo altered aomewh.nt the Inreal foniuila of the siiecimeiis 

 previously descrilied by nie, ii> asiniuh as I have not here reeo^iiiized any siipraloicals. 

 1 was thin quite nncertain as to what shields I'mreNsor Cope included anion^ Iho 

 "loreals" of his ori<xinal descriptions, hnt after havini; seen his speciniona I havo 

 /uodilied my nomenclature so ;ih to bo coniparaMo with his, 



X'roc. N. M. 01 .33 



