24 LACERTAD A. 
Not even when the present handsome species was distin- 
guished as indigenous to this country, was it suspected that 
the name applied to the former was erroneous as so ap- 
plied, and still less that it might, in fact, appertain to this 
new addition to our Fauna. 
The slender knowledge possessed by Linneus of the 
species of Reptilia, and his total ignorance, consequently, 
of the value of specific characters in this class, led him to 
include amongst the supposed varieties of his Lacerta agilis 
several which have since been ascertained to be not speci- 
fically only, but generically distinct ;—at least, according 
to the rigid principles of subdivision adopted by several of 
our more distinguished modern Erpetologists. As, how- 
ever, the typical form of his species thus named was in- 
digenous to Sweden,—for he refers in his great standard 
work, the “Systema Nature,” to the ‘“‘ Fauna Suecica” to 
fix its identity,—it only remains for us to ascertain what is 
the common species of that country, to fix this doubtful 
and obscure synonymy. 
It appears quite clear that neither of the two species 
which I have before mentioned as having erroneously re- 
ceived the name of Lacerta agilis can possibly be the one 
originally intended by the great Swedish naturalist, as 
neither of them appears to be indigenous to that country. 
But it is not only highly probable, but becomes a demon- 
strated fact, that the present species is the type of the L. 
agilis of Linneus, when it is considered that it is a native 
of Sweden, and that the short allusion—for it is nothing 
more—in the ‘ Fauna Suecica” is perfectly applicable to 
it. The specific character given by Linneus both in the 
* Fauna Suecica” and the “Systema Nature” is vague, 
and equally applicable to the whole of the genus Lacerta 
as now constituted; but he proceeds to name two varieties 
