246 BULLETIN 58, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM, 



third, for instance, is not longer than the width of the head; the 

 larger scales on fore neck, as well as those forming the collar, are 

 wider, rounded at the end and smooth; no row of granules between 

 supraoculars and superciliaries, only one or two isolated gramdes on 

 the right side; on one side 1 scale between first supraocular and 

 loreal, on the other 2; 4 pairs of submentals; 4 keels on upper surface 

 of tail; color above brownish olive with black spots, below whitish, 

 but with no trace of an}" white band between eye and ear and beyond. 



The only difference between Boulenger's descriptions of the type 

 from Kossakewitcha, on the Amur, and four specimens from Kha- 

 barovka, which expressly state that the temporals are "perfectly 

 smooth," consists in these scales being obtusely keeled in our 

 specimen. 



On the other hand, were it not for the 3 inguinal pores, our speci- 

 mens might with equal propriety be referred to T. wolteri, originally 

 described from Korea (Chemulpo). The latter has only one inguinal 

 pore on each side. Fischer, in the original description, does not 



Figs. 213-216.— Takydromus amurensis. 2 x nat. size. 213, top of head; 214, side of head; 215, 



MIDDLE OF back; 216, INGUINAL REGION. No. 2118.'), U.S.N.M. 



mention whether the temporals are keeled or smooth, but from the 

 fact that Boulenger, with the type before him, refers it to T. tachy- 

 dromoides, I feel justified in inferring that it has keeled temporals. 

 However, as I find a great difference in the amount of carination 

 of the temporals in typical Japanese T. tachydromoides, I am inclined 

 to place but little faith in this character. 



The question then arises whether in reality T. wolteri is distinct 

 from T. amurensis. The material is as yet too scant (3 specimens 

 in British Museum, viz, the type from Chemulpo, one specimen from 

 Kiukiang, China, and one from an unknown locality; Guenther, 

 Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6), I, 1888, p. 168) to permit any authoritative 

 decision, and I therefore abide provisionally by that of Doctor Guen- 

 ther and recognize it as distinct, although with considerable doubt. 



A detailed description seems superfluous after the above remarks. 



Habitat. — T. amurensis has been recorded so far only from the 

 Amur district. In addition to the speciijiens from Kossakewitcha 



