332 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. los 



the original motivation for a reinvestigation of the status of the species, 

 which poses the problem of answering three questions. First, what 

 specimen actually constitutes the type; second, what is the type 

 locality; and third, with what species in this area may the name 

 perplexus be associated? These questions while simple are not easily 

 answered Their solutions have been greatly facilitated by the kind- 

 ness of Dr. Remington Kellogg, director of the U. S. National Museum, 

 in making available to us type material and other specimens; by the 

 cooperation of Dr. Doris M. Cochran in her search of the USNM 

 catalogs; and by the material assistance of the Council on Research 

 and Creative Work of the University of Colorado, whose monetary 

 aid has made possible the acquisition of comparative material. 



The Type: Baird and Girard (1852) published descriptions of a 

 series of lizards based largely on material collected by Dr. John H. 

 Clark, under Col. J. D. Graham, head of the Scientific Corps, U. S. 

 and Mexican Boundary Commission; but there were also included 

 specimens collected by others. In this paper the extremely brief 

 description of Cnemidophorus perplexus is based on an unstated number 

 of specimens presumably collected by Clark in the valley of the Rio 

 San Pedro of the Rio Grande del Norte (according to Smith and 

 Taylor, 1950, p. 363, tliis is the Devils River, Val Verde County, 

 Tex.) and specimens collected by Gen. Churchill on the Rio Grande 

 west of San Antonio and by Dr. William Gambel, at no specific locality, 

 on his last journey to California. No holotj^e is indicated, nor 

 by any clue from the description, title, or introduction does one speci- 

 men seem to receive closer attention that any other. This is not too 

 surprising in that the type concept was in its infancy at that time. 



As far as we are aware, the first indication that a type existed is 

 Cope's (1893, p. 34) remark that "The type specimen is the largest 

 obtained, and is probably adult." He does not, however, indicate 

 to which specimen he is referring; but this can be determined on the 

 basis of size alone. Cope (1893, pi. 6, figs. 1, a-g; pi. 12, fig. b) also fig- 

 ures the Species, In his explanation of plates (p. 51) it is indicated that 

 figure 1 of plate 6 is of "Specimen No. 3060 U. S. National Museum." 

 Cope used these figures again in a later work (Cope, 1900, p. 573, fig. 

 105), but here they lie above the legend "Cat. No. 3060, U. S. N. M." 

 This suggests, but does not specifically state, that the figures are of the 

 type and that a lectotype, USNM 3060, had been designated. We can 

 find no such designation in the literature and assume that Cope him- 

 self selected a type sometime prior to 1893. Frequently Cope (1900) 

 designated the types in the tables of specimens held by the Museum. 

 But in this instance USNM 3060 is not even listed, nor does Yarrow 

 (1882) list this specimen in his catalog. Furthermore, in his extended 

 description of "the type" Cope's (1900, p. 573) first sentence does not 



