CROCODILIANS, LIZARDS, AND SNAKES. 279 



face, instead of being concealed, as in Ilolhroolia texana. The greater 

 length of feet is specific rather than generic. 



The difference from CaJUsanriis vcntralis is seen first in the ear, which 

 is deeper and concealed above by a fringe of large scales, wanting in 

 the other. There are also several series of small tnbercles to the large 

 plates of the cheeks, instead of the aural aperture being immediately 

 behind these. From botli GaJUsaurus ventralis and Holhroolda ie.rana 

 it differs in the nnich smaller and more numerous plates of the sui)ra- 

 orbital regions ; the two well-defined rows of plates intervening between 

 these, instead of only one indistinct one; the equality of the lateral and 

 median plates in the snout frontal region; the absence of carina exter- 

 nally on the upx)er labials, or at least their more vertical sides; the 

 inequality of the middle and lateral scales on the breast; the abrupt 

 difference in size of the scale on the under surface and anterior edge 

 of humerus and femur (especially the latter), instead of a gentle gra- 

 dation. The femoral pores are more numerous; the large occipital plate 

 smaller and more encircled by small plates. Other differences would 

 doubtless be appreciable in a larger specimen. 



Uma noiata. 



UMA RUFOPUNCTATA Cope. 

 Cvia rufopiinclata CorR, Americau Naturalist, XXIX, 1895, p. 939. 



This sj)ecies is represented in the collections of the U. S. National 

 Museum by ten specimens, of which five are adult, one half-grown and 

 four young. The description of the squamation already given in the 

 case of the V. scoparia applies in the main to this species, but there are 

 many important differences, which I proceed to enumerate. 



The dorsal scales are very small and round, and not transversely 

 diamond-shaped; in a specimen where the head and body measures 93 

 mm., three and a half measure a millimeter, transversely. The large 

 scales of the front of the humerus and femur are abrui^tly contrasted 

 with the smaller ones of the inferior faces of the same regions, instead 

 of graduating into them, as in the case in the IL scoparia. Thus there 

 are fifteen rows of small scales anterior to the femoral pores, instead of 

 only five or six, as in U. scoparia. The femoral pores number from 24 

 to 28. In two specimens they are 24-24; in one, (?)-24; in two, 25-25; 

 in one, 2G-27; in one, 27-28, and in one, 27-(?). This irregularity has 

 no relation to age, as the young do not differ from the adults in this 

 respect. The number of loreal rows of scales do not differ in the speci- 

 mens, and the supraorbital scales are also uniformly less numerous than 

 in the U. notata, numbering eleven and twelve rows. There is one well- 



