ALLIED TO LACERTA MUKALIS, 41 



Ventral plates in 6 (rarely 8) longitudinal rows ; masseteric siiielJ 

 large ; 49 to 62 scales across the niidillo o£ the body, keeled ; 27 to 

 35 lamellar scales under the fourth too L. hevis Gray. 



Ventral plates in 8 longitudinal rows ; temple covered with minute 

 granules, which are smaller than the dorsal scales; 85 to 1)5 scales 

 across the middle of the body, smooth or faintly keeled ; 2'.) or 30 

 lamellar scales unilor the idurili too L. Jai/akai-i B\gr. 



B. Pterygoid teeth absent, with rare exceptions. 



1. A large upper temporal. 



52 to 66 scales across the middle of the body ; median snbcaudal scales 



not enlarged; 27 to 32 lamellar scales under the fourth too . . . L. danfordii Gthr. 



59 to 75 scales across the middle o£ the body ; median snbcaudal scales 

 strongly enlarged, the largest at least twice as broad as long ; 22 to 

 26 lamellar scales under the fouith toe L. oxycephala D. k B. 



36 to -15 scales across the middle of the body ; median subcandal scales 



feebly enlarged ; 22 to 25 lamellar scales under the fourth toe . . L. mosorensis Kolomb. 



2. Upper temporal ami masseteric shields absent; 54. to 81 scales 



across the middle of the body L. dugesii M.-Edw. 



The division into two groups according to the presence of one or of two postnasal 

 shields is merely for convenience *. It does not express the true relationships, as I 

 regard L. dugesii as more nearly related to L. murcdis than to the species with which 

 it is associated in this key. To remove the difficulties imposed by the necessity of 

 a serial arrangement, and to convey the affinities as I conceive them, the following 

 diagram has been drawn up : — 



L. chloroyaster. L. jaclsonii. L. jayalari. L. htvis. L. danfordii. L. o-rycepliala. 



L. muralii. L. dvqesii. I r . ,„ 



•' L. mosorensis. 



L. taurira. — j L. peloponnesiaca. L. brandtii. 

 L. mjilis. L. pcirva. 



Lacerta TAUEICA. 



Laceria taurica, Pallas, Zoogr. Ross.-As. ill. ]k :\0 (1^11) ; Rathke, Mem. Sav. Etr. Ac. St. Petersb. 

 iii. 1837, p. 302, pi. ii. figs. 1-4; IVmidotl', Voy. Kuss. Mer. iii. p. 337, pi. i. figs. 1, 2 

 (1842) ; Kessler, Tr. St. Petersb. Nat. Soc. viii. 1878, p. 163 ; Bouleng. Proc. Zool. Soc. 



* As stated in the Introduction (p. 6), I take the single postnusal to be the more primitive; but, although 

 the division of the shield into two has become fixed in the forms which I regard as evolved out of L. parvn, 

 I can see no reason for rejecting the possibility of a reversion by fusion to a single shield, as the tendency in 

 L. mosorensis shows. 



VOL. .\xi. — PAKT I. No. 0. — Jinie, 1IU6. G 



