THE HERPETOLOGY OF HISPANIOLA 115 



without the remaining dark paired bars on the body which occur in 

 samanensis. 



"In details of scalation, however, samanensis is a httle closer to 

 macrolepis than to richardsonii. In fact, the smaller and more niuner- 

 ous labial plates of the Jamaican species, as well as the extremely 

 small scales on top of the snout, serve at once to separate this species 

 from samanensis. The number and proportions of the labial plates 

 in macrolepis, however, are almost identical to those in samanensis. 

 The supranasals in samanensis are larger and in mutual contact in the 

 four examples at hand, although this character may prove to be 

 unstable in this species, as it is known to be in macrolepis. The true 

 difference between the two species is apparent on examining the dorsal 

 scales. Not only are the enlarged dorsal scales appreciably smaller 

 in samanensis, but they extend only as far forward as the shoulders, 

 while in macrolepis they appear on the nuchal region, and give way 

 to granular scales just behind the occiput itseK." 



Specimens examined. — U.S.N.M. No. 74970 (type) and Nos. 74971- 

 74973 (paratypes), Boco del Infiemo, Dominican Republic, February 

 28, 1928, Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. 



SPHAERODACTYLUS DIFFICILIS Barbour 



Figure 39 



1901. Sphaerodactylus notatus Meerwarth, Mitt. Naturh. Mus., vol. 18, p. 20, 

 (part) (Bai von Samana, S. Domingo) (not of Baird). — Stejneger, Ba- 

 trachians and land reptiles of the Bahama Islands, p. 331, 1905 (part). — 

 Barbour, Mem. Mus. Comp. ZooL, vol. 44, No. 2, p. 264, 1914. — Barbour 

 and Ramsden, Mem. Mus. Comp. ZooL, vol. 47, No. 2, p. 85, 1919. 



1914. Sphaerodactylus difficilis Barbour, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 44, No. 

 2, p. 265 (type locality, Santiago de la Vega, Dominican Republic); Mem. 

 Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 47, No. 3, p. 241, 1921; Zoologica, vol. 11, No. 4, 

 p. 83, 1930; vol. 19, No. 3, p. 101, 1935; Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 82, 

 No. 2, p. Ill, 1937.— Schmidt, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 44, art. 2, 

 p. 9, 1921.— Cochran, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 66, art. 6, p. 3, 1924. — 

 Barbour and Loveridge, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 69, No. 10, p. 341, 

 1929. 



1888. Sphaerodactylus nigropunctatus Garman, Bull. Essex Inst., vol. 19, p. 18 

 (Samand) (not of Gray). 



1888. Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Garman, Bull. Essex Inst., vol. 19, p. 21 (not 

 of Giinther). 



The redescription of the type, M.C.Z. No. 7834, from Santiago de 

 la Vega, Dominican Republic, is quoted fron Barbour (Mem. Mus. 

 Comp. Zool., vol. 47, No. 3, p. 241, 1921): 



"Snout rather short, not conspicuously acute; distance of eye from 

 tip of snout and ear about equal; rostral moderate with median groove; 

 nostril between rostral, first supralabial, a large supranasal and two 

 smaller scales; two small scales border the rostral behind with the supra- 

 nasals; three large and one small supralabial to below centre of eye; 

 superciliary spine present; head above and on sides covered with 



