HEKPETULOGY OF PORTO KICO. 609 



1881. Ei(prepes spilouotus GrNDLAcn, Anal. Soc. Esjjan. Hist. Nut., X, 1881, 

 p. oil (Porto Rico) (not of Wiegmann 1837). — Eupri'jii'f! [Mabula) 

 spilaiKitiis Peters, Mon. Ber. Berlin Akad. Wiss., 1870, }>. 708 (Porto 

 Rico).— Stahl, Fanna Puerto-Rico, 1882, p. 159 (Porto Rici.). 



1887. Mahdki tiitlda Garman, Bull. Essex Inst., XIX, 1887, p. .il ; extr. p. 27 

 (tyjie localitieH, Porto Rico and Santo Domingo; types in Mus. Conip. 

 Zool. Canibr. ). 



A direct comparison between the six typical specimens of JI. ful- 

 gUIa from Jamaica (U.S.N.M., No. 5759) and the specimen from 

 Porto Rico here figured and described, for tlie loan of which I am 

 greath' indebted to Prof. S. Garman, convinces me that Bocourt and 

 Garman are correct in regarding them as distinct forms. I can not 

 agree, however, with Professor (xarman in the nomenclature he pro- 

 poses, following Bonlanger, as he does, in ascri))ing the name J/, shuoiu 

 (Daudin) to the Jamaican form. True, Daudin referred Sloane's 

 Lacertns mino)' Ixvls, from Jamaica, to his Scrncffi^- .sloanil under the 

 impression that it was the same species as the specimen he described 

 as being in the ''Museum d'histoire naturelle de Paris,"" without giving 

 the locality of tlie latter, but we have Dumeril and Bibron's express 

 statement to the elfect that his type was collected in St. Thomas by 

 Richard pere," and according to modern rtdes of nomenclature the 

 name follows the type. It is consequently the Jamaican form which 

 requires a different name, Wiegmann's J/, i^j^jllonotus lieing apparently 

 available for this form. 



1 have been unable to find any character by which the Porto Rico 

 specimen can be separated from topical J/, doan'il. The t3^pe of the 

 latter has a somewhat abnormal arrangemiMit of the frontonasal and 

 the prefrontals, the former being very short and the latter broadly in 

 contrast, l)ut on the whole the St. Thomas form seems to be the same 

 as the Porto Rican. 



Professor Garman has pointed out the characters separating the 

 two forms from flamaica and Porto Rico, though I nmst add that one 

 of the characters, namely, the alleged lower niuu})er of scales from 

 chin to vent in the Jamaican species does not seem to hold, as in our 

 series the number \'aries from 48 to 60. On the other hand, there is 

 a strong tendency in the Jamaican form towards three pairs of nuchals. 

 Of the six specimens before me there is only one specimen with two 

 pairs of nuchals; two have 3 on one side and 2 on the other; while 

 three specimens have three pairs of enlarged luichals. 



It must lie admitted that no one single character seems to be abso- 

 lutely constant, but it is believed that it will always be possible to 

 refer a specimen to its proper category l)y a combination of the domi- 

 nant characters. Thus, separated supranasals and three pairs of 



«Plustard, Daudin en publia une description cl'apres I'individu menie que nous 

 venons d'ecrire ici. * * * Nous possedons un seul exemplaire qui a ete recueilli 

 dans I'ile de Saint-Thomas, I'une des Antilles, par Richard pere. 



NAT MUS 1902 39 



