42 BULLETIN 151, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



The male has 10 upper labials on one side, while the range in the 

 type series was from 8 to 9; apart from this both specimens are in 

 agreement with the length}^ description based on 12 examples. The 

 male measures 93 (48+45) mm.; the female is 50 mm. from snout to 

 vent, but the tail is missing. 



HEMIDACTYLUS TANGANICUS. new species 



Hemidaclylus ruspoUi Loveridge (not of Boulenger) part, 1920, Proc. Zool. 

 See. London, p. 134. 



In 1920 I referred an exceptionally large gecko from Duthumi to 

 H. ruspolii Boulenger. Recently, in connection with the present 

 paper, I have reexamined this gecko and compared it with the pair 

 of imdoubted ruspolii from northern Kenj^a Colony as well as with 

 a specimen of H. macropJiolis Boulenger from Lugh, Somaliland, 

 named and sent to me by Boulenger himself. I find that this gecko 

 can not be identified with either species, though intermediate in 

 several respects. Feeling confident that it represents an undescribed 

 species, I propose to designate it as above. It is possible that the 

 large male from^ Mbunyi, Kenya Colony, mentioned in the 1920 paper 

 is also referable to this new species; the individual in question is, 

 I believe, in the Nairobi Museum. 



Monotype. — Museum of Comparative Zoology No. 18253, a female 

 from Duthumi, Morogoro District, Tanganyika Territory; collected 

 by A. Loveridge on September 20, 1916. 



Diagnosis.- — Distinguished from what is apparently its nearest ally 

 H. ruspolii by (1) its greater size, which is twice that of the type 

 of ruspolii; (2) a patch of uniform granules in the concavity of the 

 forehead and similar patches in the loreal and supraocular regions, 

 instead of having the whole head covered with large, juxtaposed, 

 sharply keeled tubercles, as is the case in ruspolii; (3) the depth of 

 the rostral is two-thirds its width instead of a little broader than 

 deep as in ruspolii; (4) there are 20 longitudinal rows of greatly 

 enlarged, strongly keeled tubercles across the body, instead of 14 to 

 16; (5) the very different appearance of the obtusely keeled conical 

 tubercles as opposed to the elongate, sharply keeled and spinose 

 caudal scales of ruspolii. 



As there seemed just a possibility that it (tanganicus) might be 

 identified with harodanus Boulenger, which is only laiown to me from 

 the description, I took the liberty of sending the type of tatiganicus 

 to Mr. H. W. Parker, who has very kindty compared it with the type 

 of harodanus, and points out the following differences: (1) Two 

 lobules on anterior border of ear as against no auricular lobules in 

 harodanus. (2) Concavity of upper surface of snout lined by small 

 granules while those scales in the concavity of harodanus are not 

 appreciably smaller than those on the snout. (3) Tubercles on the 

 back and occiput are very much larger and more strongly keeled 



