162 BITLLETIN 15 4, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



111 lUl*,), Dickerson described two new species of CnemhlojiJior} 

 from Tiburoii Island, (iiilf of California, namely, pinicfifiiicaJIs and 

 disparih's. The ai)pearan('e of these two closely related forms on one 

 small island was surprising;, but two, as such, have been recognized 

 until the present time. 



The original description of j^iinctHinealis is lengthy and detailed. 

 The supposed differences from melanostetJius {=tesseUatus) are 

 as follows: The attainment of advanced stages of color pattern at 

 an earlier period of development, and the possession of a different 

 color pattern on the sides, a longer head, and a longer foot. The 

 ])aratypes of 'punctilincaJls are not uniform in their characters, the 

 dorsal coloration in some approaching that of typical ruhidus. This 

 point will be discussed under that form. It is not exactly under- 

 stood why these specimens should have been considered as attaining 

 advanced stages at an early period of pattern development, and in 

 the pattern itself there is nothing distinctive. Moreover, the length 

 of the head and of the foot have found to be worthless as diag- 

 nostic characters. Some of the paratypes have the chest covered 

 w^ith a deep black suff'usion and in others this suffusion is only light 

 slate. Schmidt (1922, p. 676) in discussing these specimens stated 

 that "The species, puncfilinealis, apparently represents a fairly dis- 

 tinct race of meJanostefhus, the dorsal coloration being more nearly 

 that of tessellatus, the ventral of melano/^frfliii.s. This is exactly the 

 coloration described by Van Denburgh and Sle\in in specimens from 

 Isla Partida, near Angel de la Guardia Island, as dickersonae; a 

 paratype of this species, in the collection of the American Museum 

 of Natural History, is more clearly allied in color pattern to adult 

 disparlUs.''^ It is evident from Schmidt's discussion that he was 

 confused about the affinity and significance of this form. Van Den- 

 burgh (1922, p. 529) showed that he realized the futility of giving 

 it recognition by placing it in the synonymy of vielanostethus. 

 Because of the lack of reliable diagnostic characters in punctilinealis, 

 this author is followed in considering the species as not even a 

 " fairly distinct race of tesseUatusy 



The original description of dwpmilis (based on a type and t"svo 

 paratypes) is largely indefinite. The following differences from 

 'inartyris are cited : locality, spotted coloration, presence of enlarged 

 scales under the forearm, and variation in measurements. It appears 

 from the description that the " form " is a composite, drawn from 

 more than one species. Van Denburgh (1922, p. 497) studied this 

 problem as follows : " The original description of the young (the 

 two paratypes) indicates that they do not represent the same species 

 as the adult type specimen. Careful comparison of the paratypes 

 with a series of cafalinenf^is has shown them to be identical. It, 



