208 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1898. 



the terms Sauria aud Ophidia for the two divisions. Stanuius iu 1856 

 gave the first clear presentation of the contents of the Squamata in 

 their natural relations. He embraced under the Sauria the three divi- 

 sions, Amphisbienoidea, Kionocrania, and Ohamteleonida, which are 

 the forms now generally included by authors in the suborder. 



As regards the contents of the suborder, Wiegmann first gave in 

 the Herpetologia Mexicana an intelligible system based on structural 

 characters. His work formed the basis of the later ones of Dumeril 

 and Gray. The sharacters employed by these authors were, however, 

 external. In 1864' the present writer published a synopsis of the 

 osteological characters of the Sauria, and proposed a system based on 

 them. I used the names given by previous authors for groups where, 

 as is usually the case, the characters of the skeleton coincide with those 

 indicated by the tegumentary structures and tongue. In 1896 I rein- 

 forced these definitions by characters derived from the penial structures.^ 



RHIPTOGLOSSA. 



lihiptoglossi Wiegmann, Herp. Hex., 1834, p. 13. 

 Bendrosaura Gray, Cat. Liz., 1834, pp. 5, 264. 

 Chamcvleonidea Stannius, Zoot. Ampb., 1856, p. 7. 

 Rhiptoglossa Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1864, p. 226. 

 Chaviceleonoidea Gunther, Phil. Traus., 1867, CLVIII, 1867, p. 626. 

 Rhiptoglossa Boulenger, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (5) XIV, 1884, p. 120. 



Petrosal bone not produced anterior to the anterior semicircular 

 canal, and not articulating with the parietal above. Olfactory lobes 

 not underarched by the frontal bones. 



Digits including metapodials in opposing groups of two and three 

 about a centrale carpi and tarsi respectively. No clavicles. Tongue 

 papillose, with sheathed extremity. Hemipeuis calyculate. 



Many other peculiarities characterize the lizards included in this 

 superfamily, but they are not such as appear to me to characterize 

 a division of such high rank, but to pertain rather to the definition of 

 the single family which it includes. 



Some authors think that the Sauria should be primarily divided into 

 three divisions : the Ohama^leonida (= Rhiptoglossa), Kionocrania (re- 

 maining Sauria), and Amphisbicnia Boulenger divides the Squamata. 

 into four primary divisions, of which the Rhiptoglossa forms one, and the 

 others are the lizards, Pythonomorpha, and the snakes. These views 

 are due to the importance attached to an aggregate of characters, each 

 one of #hich can be shown to be of no wide systematic value in the 

 Squamata. Thus the absence of epipterygoid characterizes forms not 

 widely removed (some of the Leptoglossa) from those which possess it. 

 The interclavicle is absent iu the chameleons, but it experiences great 

 reduction to extinction in somo other groups. Other chat^acters will be 

 mentioned under the family definition. 



■ Proceedings, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1864, p. 224-230. 

 -Idem., 1896, p. 461^67. 



