660 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1!»02. 



ANOLIS PULCHELLUS" Dumeril and Bibron. 



1837. Aiiolia pulcJu'llus Dumeril and Bibron, Erpet. Gen., IV, p. 97 (type 

 locality erroneously stated to be Martinique; Mus. Paris, Plee, col- 

 lector).— Dumeril, Cat. Meth. Rept. Mus. Paris, p. 56 (1851) (Martin- 

 ique). — Reinhardt and Luetken, Vid. Meddel. Naturh. Foren. (Copen- 

 hagen) 1862, 1"). 257; author's separate p. 105 (St. Thomas, St. Croix, 

 Tortola, Just v. Dyck, Vieques, Porto Rico). — Bocourt, Miss. Sci. 

 Mex., Zool. Rept., livr. 3, 1874, pi. xvi, figs. 28-28^( (type).— Peters, 

 Mon. Ber. Berlin Akad. Wins., 1876, p. 706 (Porto Rico).— Gund- 

 LACii, Anal. Soc. Espan. Hist. Nat., X, 1881, p. 310 (Porto Rico).— 

 Staiil, Fauna Puerto-Rico, 1882, pp. 69, 159 (Porto Rico). — Meer- 

 WARTH, Mitth. Naturh. Mus. Hamburg, XVIII, 1901, p. 25 (St. 

 Thomas, Porto Rico). — Boulenger, Cat. Liz. Brit. Mus., II, p. 67 

 (1885) (St. Thomas).— Garman, Bull. Essex Inst., XIX, 1887, p. 48 

 (Haiti, Porto Rico, St. Thomas). 



The type locality of AdoUs pulchcl/uv is given as Martinique, col- 

 lected ))y Plee, but it can ])e asserted with confidence that the state- 

 ment is erroneous, and that the species does not occur in that island, 

 nor in fact on any of the Caribbean islands south of the Virgin group. 

 It is only one of the nian}^ instances in which Plee's reptiles were 

 accredited in Paris to Martinique because shipped from this island. 

 Plee collected both in Porto Rico and in St. Thomas, and from one of 

 these islands the type has come. 



Dumeril and Bibron's description of A. jjulchellus agrees best with 

 the form here so designated. It certainly does not apply to either of 

 the species we call A. h'l/gi or A. jjo7icensls. On the other hand, 

 there are a few discrepancies in the relative size of the dorsal, lateral, 

 and ventral scutellation; but, although rather detailed, the original 

 description is not sufiiciently precise. I have not been able to com- 

 pare my Porto Rican series with St. Thomas specimens, and there is 

 consequently a possibility that they may be different, and that in the 

 later case the name of A. jnilcliellus ma}- be applicable to specimens 

 from St. Thomas only. In this connection I wish to call attention to 

 the possibility that although only one species of this group of Anolis 

 is recorded from St. Thomas, namely, A. pulchellus^ at least one other 

 may have been confounded with it and overlooked. A large series of 

 these lizards from the Virgin Islands is therefore a great desideratum 

 as well as a direct comparison with the types in Paris. 



This species is closely allied to A. krugi^ differing chiefl}" in the 

 greater extension of the enlarged keeled scales on the back, in the 

 much lower and narrower head which is covered with larger scales. In 

 A. hnigi the interorbital space is consequently wider with larger and 

 more numerous scales between the supraor])ital semicircles, and the 

 loreal rows are also more numerous. The adult males are easily told 

 apart, the A. pidcheUus having the skin of the dewlap crimson, while 

 in A. hrugi it is orange. 



« Pretty. 



