TEIID T.IZ.Vr.DS OF THE GEISTUS CNEMIDOPHOr.US 105 



G. communis was described b}^ Cope in 1877 from specimens from 

 Colima, Guadalajara, and Cordoba in Mexico; from Coban in 

 Guatemala; and from San Antonio in Texas. The types have 

 a]:)parently been lost and the original description is none too definite, 

 but the fact that specimens from such Avidely separated regions 

 were considered as the same by a specialist Avho Avas always looking 

 for new species seems to ar<^ue in itself against the retention of 

 subsequently described " varieties " of communis as distinct units. 

 Two recognizable phases of communis were given in the original 

 description as follows : " I. With two rows of light spots in the 

 spaces betAveen the stripes in females, while in the males the stripes 

 are broken into round spots to give a coloration like that of guttatusP 

 It may be remarked that this phase appears often in series of gularis, 

 and that it is not seen in youug individuals. " II. With no spots 

 and the bands unbroken." This is more or less typical of the young 

 everywhere, but it is rarely seen in adults. 



It is not surprising that Cope should have repo) ted '"'' communiH''' 

 from many localities, but it is surprising that Gadow (1906) should 

 have designated variety I as a new subspecies, C. communis copei^ 

 based on cotypes from Colima and INfanzanillo in the state of Colima, 

 and San Domingo de Guzman in Oaxaca. At the same time two 

 specimens from Cozumel Island, off the coast of Quintana Roo, were 

 also referred to the assemblage. It seems Avorth pointing out here 

 that Cope (1886, p. 283) had already Avritten that " Communis from 

 soutliern Mexico has the coloration of the subspecies guttatus and no. 

 4, bat differs from them in the possession of a frenoocular plate." 

 The subspecies mentioned are from Chihuahua and liave already 

 been sufficiently identified Avith gularis. The frenoocular distinction 

 is Avorthless since a frenoocular sometimes occurs on one side of a 

 specimen's head and not on the other. Altliough Gadow (1906, 

 p. 293) presumed that conmnunis was stopped from an eastAvard mi- 

 gration in the state of Zacatecas, specimens are now available from 

 that area and the appearance of like forms in Colima and Chihuahua 

 indicates that an absolute barrier to eastAvard migration does not exist. 

 GadoAV (p. 293) AA-rote that "Cope's statement that liis communis 

 occurs also at Coban in Guatemala is as Avorthless as that of lioeourt 

 that he has mexiccunus from Salama in Guatemala." This supposition 

 of Gadow's seems to be in error, since tlie Avriter has examined a fine 

 series of giJaris from the Deijartmcnts of Jalai)a and Guatemala 

 (in Guatemala) to the south of tlie records in question. Therefore 

 both the Coban and Salama reports are accepted here. 



The second variety Avas not amply discussed by Gadow. Avho, 

 although describing additional specimens as subspecies of conimunis, 

 did not recognize a ccnti'al foim as ('. commu)ii.s communis. Since 

 2306—31 8 



