34 BULLETIN IT) 4, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



Brazil and Panama, as well as from Old Providence Island, and the 

 overlapping of the range of variation at many places, renders this 

 distinction untenable. 



The width of the parietal shields was said to be as great as the 

 wdclth of the head measured between the siiperciliaries at the third 

 supraocular in galgei and to be about equal to the distance between 

 the outer margins of the first supraocular plates in lemnkcatiis. 

 The attempt to measure this difference in millimeters failed because 

 the measurement across the soft, pliable supraoculars was too inaccu- 

 rate. A careful comparison of individuals from various places 

 shows that there is a very extensive overlapping in this character as 

 in the others and that it, too, is of little value. 



The outer parietal scales on each side were found to be in contact 

 with the enlarged postorbital scale or separated from it by one or, 

 larely, two small scales in the series of gaigei, but were separated 

 l;y from two to four scales in the series of lemniscatus. It is found 

 that the full contact of the postorbital with the external parietal is 

 of rare occurrence and that the normal condition for certain " typi- 

 cal " galgei is one in which a single connecting scute is ])resent. 

 This is found in the type of ruatanus, recently described by Barbour 

 from Kuatan Island, in specimens of lemniscatus from the adjacent 

 mainland of Honduras, and in examples from Milford Bay, Tobago, 

 as well. In specimens from many places, including Brazil, two 

 scutes have been found, and it becomes evident that this character, 

 too, is useless in separating populations of the two supposed forms. 



Thus, because of the failure of its supposed diagnostic features, 

 gnigci can no longer be retained as a distinct entity. 



After finding that Laurenti gave the type locality of Seba's speci- 

 men as "Guinea", and tliat Daudin (1802, 180) corrected this to 

 read "Guiana", Kuthven in describing Gnemulophorus lemniscatus 

 gaigei proposed that the name, " C. lemniscatus Laurenti," type lo- 

 cality " Guiana " be restricted to this area. In a footnote he defended 

 his action as follows : " It may be pointed out that if the name be 

 credited to Daudin, as is usually done, it may still be applied to the 

 British Guiana specimens as the type locality is then " Surinam." 

 The name should be credited to Linnaeus, however, since it appeared 

 in the tenth edition of the Systema Xaturae in I7r)8 as Lacerta lem- 

 niscata and was also present in the edition of ITCG, both of these 

 editi(jns being printed prior to the appearance of Laurenti's treatise 

 in 1708. The original type locality was "Guinea" as copied by 

 Laurenti. 



The description of Cnemidophorus lemniscatus ruatanus Barbour 

 from Ruatan, one of the Bay Islands of Honduras, has recently 

 appeared (1928). The type was said to differ from lemniscatus in 



