340 LarertidcXK 



E. arrjus. Suboctilar not, reaching the labial inar^iu ; frontal shorter 

 than or as long as the greatest width of the two frontoparietals ; tail 

 short, at most li times as long as head and body. Brown above, 

 with numerous oblong oval light ocellar spots in longitudinal series, 

 mostly incompletely surrounded with dark brown and transversely 

 connected by dark brown spots. 



E. brenchleiji. Subocular reaching the labial margin ; frontal longer 

 than the greatest width of the two frontoparietals ; tail long, more 

 than 1^ times head and body. Dorsal region with or without dark 

 spots, sides with two series of light ocelli, of which the lower is 

 replaced by a light streak. 



Although fulfilling its purpose in most cases, this comparative 

 definition may be misleading in others. Bedriaga has himself stated 

 in his detailed description that one of the specimens of E. argiis in 

 the Peti'ograd Museum has the subocular as in E. brenchleiji, for which 

 reason Strauch had previously referred it to the latter. There are 

 other exceptions : two specimens from Pekin and Aisun, in the British 

 Museum, and, I believe, others in the Grenoa Museum, coml)ine the 

 subocular of E. brencJileyi with the ocellated back of E. argus* I 

 have come across several specimens! of E. argus in which the length 

 of the frontal is greater than the width of the frontoparietals. 



The tail in the type of E. brenchleyi is not quite li times the length 

 of head and body, whilst it may be 1^ times in E. argus. Bedriaga 

 mentions, it is true, specimens of the former with the tail nearly twice 

 as long as head and body, a length greater than in any of the 

 specimens I have been able to e.\amine ; but the fact nevertheless 

 remains that the wording of his definition would be misleading as 

 i-egards the British Museum collection. In examining the coloration 

 of a large number of E. argus, I have noticed exceptional examples, 

 from Chefoo, which would fall under the definilitni of E. brenchleyi. 



Having disposed of these characters, I will pass on to two others 

 which have been pointed out by Bedriaga in his full descriptions. 

 First, the head of E. brenchleyi is more flattened, with the snout more 

 pointed. This is true generally speaking, but some E. argus have the 

 snout less obtuse than others, and the convexity of the head is also 

 subject to some variation, the extremes between the two supposed 

 species being no greater than between individuals luiited by me under 

 Lacerta taurica; the comparison with L. ag His and L. muralis is an 

 exaggeration for which Boettger is responsible. I may add that there 



* These specimens have 53 and 61 scales across the body respectively, 

 t 5 from Chefoo, 3 from Pekin, 2 from Chih Feng', 1 from N. China, 1 from 

 N.E. I\Tonsrolia. 



