REPTILIA. 303 



Celestus sagrae Cocteau. 



CocTEAU, Sagra's Hist. Cuba, Rept., 1S3S, p. ISO, p. 20. Boulengeb, Cat. lizards Brit, mus., 1885, 2, 

 p. 293. 



' A species of which Httle is known. It is confined to Cuba. The only 

 examples which I have seen have been two, one obtained by exchange from Dr. 

 Stejneger of the U. S. national museum, which came from eastern Cuba. This 

 was the locality indicated for most of the collection of Mr. Charles Wright which 

 was made in the Sierra de Yateras, near Guantanamo. The second specimen 

 was given me by my friend, the Cuban botanist, Sr. Jesus Valdivia, whom I 

 have to thank for many favors. It was caught near the city of Havana. Mr. 

 William Palmer wrote me that he had met the species once in the Vuelta Abajo 

 region near San Cristobal. Gundlach mentions that the species is rare and 

 unknown to many natives. Those who know it call it "Culebrita de quatro 

 patas," the four-footed snake. 



Celestus sepoides (Gr.a^t). 

 Gray, Ann. mag. nat. hist., 1852, ser. 2, 10, p. 281. Boulenger, Cat. lizards Brit, mus., 1885, 2, p. 294. 



This species, the only Celestus having four toes, has twice been named as 

 the type of a genus pecuhar to Haiti. Once it was called Sauresia by Gray 

 {loc. cii.); and ten years later it was redescribed by Weinland as Enbryopus 

 habichii. (Abhandl. Senck. naturf. gesellsch., 1862, 4, p. 132, pi. 5, fig. 1). 



If this species occurred upon the mainland, the possession of four toes 

 would be quite sufficient for the erection of a genus to contain it; l^ut for the 

 Haitian lizard, such a course only masks its relation.ships. It is in all other 

 respects a Celestus pure and simple, and represents the modified descendants of 

 individuals, left isolated in Haiti, whose relatives in Cuba have become Celestus 

 sagrae, and in Porto Rico, C. pleei. It should stand in the genus between these 

 two species. 



Not recognizing this genus, I may be considered as inconsistent after what 

 I have said regarding keeping separate C. crusculus and C. costatus. To me it 

 seems that letting this distinction stand, we are going to just as unreasonable 

 an extreme as when several valid species are thrown together simply because 

 they look very much alike. Here we are over-emphasizing an isolation which is 

 just what Gunther has warned against when by merging species we may easily 

 over-emphasize the relationships of the islands represented by the material 

 being studied. Gunther and Boulenger, — the latter in handling Cyclura, for 



