TEIID LIZARDS OF THE GEXUS CNEMIDOPHORUS 103 



(1906. p. 373), these specimens resemble certain unlined young of 

 (juttatm^ and because of this Bocourt (1874, p. 270) even went so 

 far as to suggest that " C. inornatus represents, perhaps, the young of 

 C. giittatus'' (of Wiegniann). Since, after more than 70 years, 

 additional specimens of InoriKitus have not been found, it seems 

 improbable that they represent a distinct race. From the standpoint 

 of geography, it would appear that the cotypes should be either 

 tcsseUatiis or (jularis. jNIoreover. the presence of four supraoculars 

 in inornatus suggests these species, rather than the southern forms, 

 deppii and giittatus, which usually have three. Since, the appear- 

 ance of enlarged scutes on the face of the forearm excludes the 

 possibility of identity with tcsscUatm, inornatus is placed in the 

 synonym}' of guJmis, with which it is found to agree in all details of 

 scutellation. 



The C. giittatus of Hallowell (1854). described from Texas, repre- 

 sents the spotted phase of this form. It must not be confused Avith 

 the C. giittatus of Wiegmann (1834), a distinct species, the existence 

 of which Hallowell must have overlooked. 



Gn^midof horns gularis sericeus was described from San Diego, 

 Tex., by Cope (1892). Femoral and gular differences, which are 

 often the result of individual variation, were cited in the original 

 description to se[)arate this form from gularis. A comparison of 

 the type with the types of gularis shows no radical difference in the 

 color pattern, altliough the posterior part of the back is becoming 

 unicolor. A still greater development of this tendency is shown bj 

 the type of scptenivittatus, Avhich because of other differences, must 

 be regarded as perpleA-'iis^ rather than gularis. The form from 

 Coahuila that was described as st'inifasciatus by Cope (1891, 1892) 

 differs very little from sericeus, also, and a comparison of its type 

 with the types of gidaris and sealaris (to be discussed below) indi- 

 cates all to be the same. G . semifasciatus represents a transition 

 from scaJaris, the cross-barred phase, to a phase in which the dark 

 vestiges of the original ground color tend to disappear, leaving a 

 poorly marked, nearly unicolor. pattern. Gadow (1906, p. 334) 

 recognized that sericeus and se?nifasciatus were the same, but failed 

 to link them with gularis. In series, transition from one ])hase to 

 the other may be easily seen, so all three are held to be identical. 



In describing gidaris as a '' small, rather slender species, inhabit- 

 ing the arid plains with their spare vegetation of mesquite,*' Gadow 

 (1906) was probably speaking of perpJexus, rather than gidaris, and 

 it seems apparent that his conception of the *' northern gidaris " as 

 a species rested upon specimens in the British Museum from Fort 

 Lowell, Ariz., although he also listed the '* typical "' form from Duval 

 County, Tex. His description of G. gidaris meelii from northeastern 

 Mexico is not surprising when viewed in this light, for the differ- 



